Monday, December 7, 2009

ladies--nothing more than ladies

i was just reading marni's intro to her book about motherhood. it's very beautiful; check it out here.

the last time i read that essay i was probably some form of teenager. i was still looking at everything marni did and said and wrote and wore as a set of instructions or even an augur--both, it took me years to learn, are bad ways of thinking about an older sister (children make mistakes). so the last time i had read it, my thoughts were laid out something like this: some time very soon i will be part of this club; i will know what it feels like to have the spirit of another human being slip into my body; i will write my own chapter of this book; i will be a lady.

there was no question in my mind that this would happen, or that it would happen very, very soon. an mri of my brain at the time would have shown that the whole thing was dominated by the assumption, totally unquestioned, totally unquestioned, that i would very, very soon start having babies. whole regions would have been lit up thinking about all the variables: who the husband would be, what fabulous grad school we'd struggle through our first years of marriage at, hair color, names.

almost 20 years later, it's been hard to pare away all those neural pathways, and the triumphs are silent and private. no scrapbooks of any of it, but i'm happy. and then reading marni's essay again... it's embarrassing now to remember that blithe and passive way of thinking, jarring to be confronted with your younger, stupider self. ghost pains. adults for the most part live in worlds that would have seemed alien to their adolescent selves.

i guess what i'm wondering is if i'd like to read or write a book about what being a lady has been like for me the same way marni wanted to make a book about what being a lady has meant for her and for most adult women. can there be a book about this kind of lady that isn't bridget jones's diary or sex and the city?

my experience of ladyhood has been essentially a negative one, not in an emotional sense but in that it's characterized by a lack of something, a failure to accomplish something. ladies have babies, but not this lady. and it's a hole that keeps growing: just as motherhood accumulates and expands, my lack of babies keeps stretching out in front of me and behind me and i get farther and farther away from motherhood as children around me get older and older, as the mothers i'm close to sink deeper into their relationships with adolescent and adult children. i mean, what kind of depressing book would this be? what would be the point? i wouldn't want to read it, and nobody else would either. putting stilettos and "you go, gurl"s on it would only make it worse. that lady doth protest too much. there's always a glowing kernel in any story about motherhood, a redemptive balm that we all know a mother is the best thing you can be. no such kernel in the spinster story.

we love mother stories because they go somewhere, and because everybody has a mother. their narratives are traditional and digestible: adam and eve, and baby makes three. and, dare i say it, mothers, in the best of circumstances, feel instinctively that there are people in the world who care what they have to say; so mother stories get written and read. the spinster story is scary and there's nobody to write or read it. jane austen wisely slaps marriages onto the ends of her spinster stories. it's almost like it's a curse instead of a story, like if you start telling the story some chasm yawns out and you have to cover it up, or you have to spit and turn in a circle three times. the danger is some kind of narrative equivalent to a time travel paradox where the human race stops existing because there's no mother character reassuring us that reproduction is still moving along. if we're not thinking about reproducing, and we're not thinking about shoes...there's nothing left to think about. chaos. a big hole. a head covered with snakes.

(i know, kristeva or cixous already wrote all of this.) (also, does the opposite of "life" have to be "death"? does the opposite of "gaia" have to be medusa?)

but ladies are ladies. ladies with babies are ladies; ladies without babies are ladies. but lady stories that don't involve babies...can they not be pathetic and depressing or about clothes and promiscuous sex? my hunch is that "lady" implies "baby" in a rigorous way. there's always a baby lurking somewhere in every lady story; it's there or it's gone or it's coming.

there are lots of reasons jesus often talked about women who are alone. here's a scritcher:


isaiah 54
1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.
2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;
3 for thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.
4 ¶ Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.
5 For thy Maker is thine husband; The LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.
6 For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.
7 For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.
8 In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer.

11 comments:

  1. This is very profound, and I'm going to have to think about it for a while.

    One thing that struck me is that, though mothers have often been the subject of stories, it's only been recently that they've been the authors of said stories, and awesome ladies like Austen, Eliot, and Woolf felt that motherhood was incompatible with authorhood (and hence Austen's heorines, transparently autobiographical, disappear before becoming mothers.)

    A long and thoughtful post. More response later.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent.

    Here's the thing: ladies have it rough, no matter who they are or what their lives are like. That's why feminism is so powerful, because it brings ladies together purely because of their ladeyness and not their interests or families or whatnots.

    Also, being a mother sucks a lot. I believe.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. of course it sucks! and i'd choose it over not having babies any day of the week. and i totally agree that all ladies have it rough; that's why i said that ladies are ladies, the ones with babies and the ones without. that's why i'm glad we're doing this blog, so that we can all talk about what being a lady means for each of us.

    and my question is kinda: we talk a lot about mothers (rightly so); how do we talk about not-mothers? are we always talking about mothers when we're talking about women? and if so, how can not-mothers approach that discussion?

    and yes, lara: lots of not-mother writers. hard to have a room of one's own when one has kids.

    i didn't know this until i wrote this post, but when perseus beheaded medusa she was pregnant by poseidon. when her head got chopped off, pegasus emerged. so fascinating! those, greeks, man. always thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Emmy--great post. Seriously.
    In relation to this, sort of, I always think about how the idea that we are all brothers and sisters (in the sense that we are all children of Heavenly Father)--all of us: husbands, grandchildren, etc.--kind of makes the whole idea of a "traditional family" as defined by society pretty much impossible.
    So, taking this to a WHOLE NOTHA LEVEL and thinking about how we are all supposed to take care of each other, have stewardship over our brothers and sisters, aren't all women who take on this responsibility mothers? At least on some level?
    Maybe this doesn't make sense to anyone else. But it's something I think about a lot.
    On the other hand, maybe this essentialist-ish view is not helpful for all the single ladies.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I can't read Marni's blog! Marni? Would you invite me?

    ReplyDelete
  8. that was from lara, not christian. so is this:

    emily, i think your point is very true--that women are thought of primarily as objects of either desire or nurturance and all other categories such as spinster, widow, etc. hold less societal power in our discourse. that "woman" is synonymous with mother or lover and few other categories hold such sway in our imaginations.

    but this is effed up.

    i'm no anthropologist, but i hear tell of cultures where old women, for instance, are highly valued members of society.

    if in fact this is partly a biological phenomenon, it is surely not a completely biological one. surely not the essentialist phenomenon we sometimes make it out to be.

    i don't know what i'm talking about, it's late (9.30 pm!) and I'm falling into bed, but i have a question for you all:

    what kind of language categories are we missing or imaginative space can be carved out to remedy this injustice?

    maybe i need to re-read cixous and kristeva.

    xo,

    L

    ReplyDelete
  9. in that sarah blaffer hrdy book called "mother nature" she talks about how middle aged women have more energy and more skill than women of child-bearing age, and this might have something to do with why women live longer than men.

    this is what was making me cry in the voodoo lady part of _the princess and the frog_. that crazy old blind lady knew the most stuff of anybody. and it was interesting too that her familiar spirit was a snake. and she totally bossed that snake around.

    oops, i just thought about that evangeline part. must...not...cry...

    ReplyDelete