Let's talk about women who read for a moment, shall we? Let's talk about this pompous archetype for women which has permeated Western culture based on some glorified version of Sense and Sensibility characters mixed with infamous Disney Belle beauty (note: she is my favorite Disney character, so not too much hate going here, but it dovetails into my point).
Let's discuss the objectification of women who are book-worms: pretty women lost inside the pages of a book. Instead of the ever popular sexually mature Jezebel or the fetishization of the pure virgin character, here we have the sapiosexual woman, the attraction to the mind. Which is great and all, until it's becomes this intensified focus point. These archetypes place women on pedestals where it's her job to make life more interesting for the man. Only she can fulfill his life with her long winded narrative on Austin, musings over Emerson, dreary eyed ruminations over Byron. Only she can fill the intellectual void because she is superior to all women. She reads thus it is only she who can truly comprehend the universe and its mysteries. Her grammar is the epitome of perfection, thus only she can make a man's heart blossom with passion and love. Why? Well, she's read about it. So of course she knows.
Her mind has become some gross fetish; the woman becomes the books she reads and the extensiveness of her vocabulary. Let's not forget, though, her purpose is too still be beautiful, her mind must match her face. She's the rare beauty hiding behind the Emersonian discourse, wind swept and niavely unaware of her own beauty. She is not the doughy librarian in the corner of the coffee shop. Oh no. Our woman who reads is gorgeous and classy and speaks with ease about the merit of Aesop's fables like the rest of discuss the weather with awkward strangers at the bus stop. She is Audrey Hepburn, but with a book instead of Tiffany diamonds. Do you see my point yet? This archetype is not about a woman's personal intelligence so much as her ability to fulfill a man's need for meaningful conversation. Or her ability to make life interesting. You talk about her as being this savoir from a humdrum life. Maybe the man has a low opinion of himself, and well, quite frankly, a girl who reads isn't going to save you from that. I can continue with the various scenarios and exceptions because that's the way humans are. Archetypes don't work because humans, in general, are all different. Unlike Wonder Woman, we were not all born from clay and lightening. I know, I'm just as upset as you are.
Back onto the woman who reads. I'm so exhausted of hearing about the magnanimous woman who reads her many books. These shy, superior women which hold so much sway over men's hearts. Maybe these woman should not be defined. Maybe her books should not swarm her identity as a person. I can assure you, she does more than read. She is not your savoir, she may or may not make your life better. She may lead you on or be your soulmate. The fact that she reads does not make her suitable for everyone. Why does her reading give her higher expectations? You mean, a woman might just want eqaulity, intelligent conversations, careers, and god knows what else, even if she doesn't read? Why yes, she does. Because she's human. Reading doesn't give women this newfangled desire for full, meaningful lives. Women want that because they are human. I'm sure there are plenty of moderately intelligent women who want the same thing. And plenty of boring women who want that. And hideous women who want Prince Charming. Why are we not talking about those women? Why does a woman who reads deserve this august repuation as the answer to all men's questions? Why does a woman who reads become more superior to one who doesn't?
But to move away from the woman for a moment. Can we talk about men? Can we talk about the other half of the equation here? What about men who read ? Where is the hype about them? Why do men need to grovel at the feet of women who read like they are the reincarnation of Minerva come to rescue them from a world of complacency and bordeom? I think not! Women are not savoirs. Just because she reads does not give her magical ability to lift up sad men, or any man, into this pillowy world of sunshine and phenamonal rhetoric. Think again. Men don't need women to have fulfilling lives. News flash! Women don't either. So stop playing this game of archetypes like one is better than the other.
I am a woman who reads. Frequently. I don't fit into this archetype, and well, any woman who thinks she does is probably wrong. That was a great discussion on the cyclical themes in Emerson's essays, sorry honey but we still won't be worshipping you like you are Athena. I love to read. I love to lose myself into the pages of book and smell the fresh glue keeping the binding together. But I am more than the books I read. I am woman because I read. I am a woman because I dance to Lady Gaga. Why not love a woman who dances to Lady Gaga? Why not love a woman because she's a person and she has a myriad of likes and dislikes. Be a woman because you want to be a woman. Be a woman because you love who you are. Love women who love themselves and like to read and dance and wear dresses and some days wear combat boots. Don't love archetypes because archetypes don't really exist. Love women because they exist as they are. I am a woman who reads, constantly, but not in public because I'd rather meet new people and I never wear matching socks.
Becuase matching socks are lame. Like archetypes. Catch my drift?
Let's discuss the objectification of women who are book-worms: pretty women lost inside the pages of a book. Instead of the ever popular sexually mature Jezebel or the fetishization of the pure virgin character, here we have the sapiosexual woman, the attraction to the mind. Which is great and all, until it's becomes this intensified focus point. These archetypes place women on pedestals where it's her job to make life more interesting for the man. Only she can fulfill his life with her long winded narrative on Austin, musings over Emerson, dreary eyed ruminations over Byron. Only she can fill the intellectual void because she is superior to all women. She reads thus it is only she who can truly comprehend the universe and its mysteries. Her grammar is the epitome of perfection, thus only she can make a man's heart blossom with passion and love. Why? Well, she's read about it. So of course she knows.
Her mind has become some gross fetish; the woman becomes the books she reads and the extensiveness of her vocabulary. Let's not forget, though, her purpose is too still be beautiful, her mind must match her face. She's the rare beauty hiding behind the Emersonian discourse, wind swept and niavely unaware of her own beauty. She is not the doughy librarian in the corner of the coffee shop. Oh no. Our woman who reads is gorgeous and classy and speaks with ease about the merit of Aesop's fables like the rest of discuss the weather with awkward strangers at the bus stop. She is Audrey Hepburn, but with a book instead of Tiffany diamonds. Do you see my point yet? This archetype is not about a woman's personal intelligence so much as her ability to fulfill a man's need for meaningful conversation. Or her ability to make life interesting. You talk about her as being this savoir from a humdrum life. Maybe the man has a low opinion of himself, and well, quite frankly, a girl who reads isn't going to save you from that. I can continue with the various scenarios and exceptions because that's the way humans are. Archetypes don't work because humans, in general, are all different. Unlike Wonder Woman, we were not all born from clay and lightening. I know, I'm just as upset as you are.
Back onto the woman who reads. I'm so exhausted of hearing about the magnanimous woman who reads her many books. These shy, superior women which hold so much sway over men's hearts. Maybe these woman should not be defined. Maybe her books should not swarm her identity as a person. I can assure you, she does more than read. She is not your savoir, she may or may not make your life better. She may lead you on or be your soulmate. The fact that she reads does not make her suitable for everyone. Why does her reading give her higher expectations? You mean, a woman might just want eqaulity, intelligent conversations, careers, and god knows what else, even if she doesn't read? Why yes, she does. Because she's human. Reading doesn't give women this newfangled desire for full, meaningful lives. Women want that because they are human. I'm sure there are plenty of moderately intelligent women who want the same thing. And plenty of boring women who want that. And hideous women who want Prince Charming. Why are we not talking about those women? Why does a woman who reads deserve this august repuation as the answer to all men's questions? Why does a woman who reads become more superior to one who doesn't?
But to move away from the woman for a moment. Can we talk about men? Can we talk about the other half of the equation here? What about men who read ? Where is the hype about them? Why do men need to grovel at the feet of women who read like they are the reincarnation of Minerva come to rescue them from a world of complacency and bordeom? I think not! Women are not savoirs. Just because she reads does not give her magical ability to lift up sad men, or any man, into this pillowy world of sunshine and phenamonal rhetoric. Think again. Men don't need women to have fulfilling lives. News flash! Women don't either. So stop playing this game of archetypes like one is better than the other.
I am a woman who reads. Frequently. I don't fit into this archetype, and well, any woman who thinks she does is probably wrong. That was a great discussion on the cyclical themes in Emerson's essays, sorry honey but we still won't be worshipping you like you are Athena. I love to read. I love to lose myself into the pages of book and smell the fresh glue keeping the binding together. But I am more than the books I read. I am woman because I read. I am a woman because I dance to Lady Gaga. Why not love a woman who dances to Lady Gaga? Why not love a woman because she's a person and she has a myriad of likes and dislikes. Be a woman because you want to be a woman. Be a woman because you love who you are. Love women who love themselves and like to read and dance and wear dresses and some days wear combat boots. Don't love archetypes because archetypes don't really exist. Love women because they exist as they are. I am a woman who reads, constantly, but not in public because I'd rather meet new people and I never wear matching socks.
Becuase matching socks are lame. Like archetypes. Catch my drift?
No comments:
Post a Comment