Fundamental differences between myself and other people
About six people were hanging out and talking at OCB, and I fundamentally could not relate to them. It was not that I was staff, and they were students. I put myself in no hierarchy at OCB, as I find hierarchy fundamentally divisive and distasteful. However, I knew if I was a student with these people that I would have absolutely no idea what to say to them. There would have been mutual respect. However, just as it was with sighted people, the situation would have been essentially awkward. For one thing, I do not make fun of people. My sense of humor tends to be much more dirty and sexual. For another, I do not present a veneer of toughness. Is the toughness generational? I do not think so, because as a teenager, my peers did it as well. However, when I was a student at OCB, I basically related with most people. But this group likes to cap on each other constantly. I have just never done that, primarily because I am so sensitive. I think that had I been less sensitive, and more willing to make fun of other people, I would have fit in a lot better in school. I also use a lot of big words, and do not watch much television or movies. I read books, which is a little different from most people.
I have always had a really good vocabulary, and perhaps a little part of me that has always been arrogant about it. I do not try to talk above other people, but I am proud of my vocabulary. See, I am very book smart, but not necessarily as street smart. And I think that I lack common sense at times. I suppose that is why I have an advanced degree, but work as a dorm counselor part-time. See, I have the book smarts and the people skills to handle a professional job, but I ooze vulnerability. I am extremely sensitive. I am like the anti-Hillary. Professional women are all supposed to be like Hillary or my boss; cold, professional, and essentially masculine. This is where feminism has some catching up to do. It is true that we as women have come a long way. It is great that the Hillarys and the Rosas of the world can succeed in the good old boys club. But what about the rest of us, whose gender socialization stuck? Will we forever be relegated to female dominated professions that make less money? What if my empathy, sensitivity and vulnerability, and the empathy, sensitivity and vulnerability of so many women were valued rather than shunned? Feminism still needs to change the culture. Many women can fight in combat. But what about the rest of us, who through nature, nurture, or both, embody traditionally feminine values? There is room for my mom, my sister, Rosa, Sheela and Hillary. But just like most of this world, feminism does not know what to do with a sensitive, relational, submissive woman like me. But even within the world of the feminine, I do not fit in. I am not very interested in my looks, because I cannot see myself. A blind person can have a sense of aesthetics, but it is usually fundamentally different than the asthetic sensibility of a sighted person. Interestingly enough, society does seem to make room for the asthetic, visual, material side of the feminine nature. These aspects of femininity are seen as essentially fun and playful. It is like society has embraced the emotional aspects of masculinity and the material side of femininity. I will always fight for a world where I can fit in too, where I can be nonchalant about my looks and primarily focused on my relationships with other people. In my women's studies classes, feminism seemed abysmally first order. The women who taught it seemed primarily concerned with proving that the study of feminism measured up in the masculine world. It was all about intellectual toughness, about a scholarly pissing contest, even when the scholars had nothing to piss with. I would love to see feminism expand its diversity to include not just issues of identity politics, but to make room for traditionally feminine creatures. It would be nice if those of us who would do anything for a man or woman we loved, who are more collective than individual, more relational than independent, could come to the table to enact radical changes in the culture. I think that when feminism learns to value the emotionally feminine woman, we will be on our way to radically changing the culture to value traditionally feminine qualities.
I have always had a really good vocabulary, and perhaps a little part of me that has always been arrogant about it. I do not try to talk above other people, but I am proud of my vocabulary. See, I am very book smart, but not necessarily as street smart. And I think that I lack common sense at times. I suppose that is why I have an advanced degree, but work as a dorm counselor part-time. See, I have the book smarts and the people skills to handle a professional job, but I ooze vulnerability. I am extremely sensitive. I am like the anti-Hillary. Professional women are all supposed to be like Hillary or my boss; cold, professional, and essentially masculine. This is where feminism has some catching up to do. It is true that we as women have come a long way. It is great that the Hillarys and the Rosas of the world can succeed in the good old boys club. But what about the rest of us, whose gender socialization stuck? Will we forever be relegated to female dominated professions that make less money? What if my empathy, sensitivity and vulnerability, and the empathy, sensitivity and vulnerability of so many women were valued rather than shunned? Feminism still needs to change the culture. Many women can fight in combat. But what about the rest of us, who through nature, nurture, or both, embody traditionally feminine values? There is room for my mom, my sister, Rosa, Sheela and Hillary. But just like most of this world, feminism does not know what to do with a sensitive, relational, submissive woman like me. But even within the world of the feminine, I do not fit in. I am not very interested in my looks, because I cannot see myself. A blind person can have a sense of aesthetics, but it is usually fundamentally different than the asthetic sensibility of a sighted person. Interestingly enough, society does seem to make room for the asthetic, visual, material side of the feminine nature. These aspects of femininity are seen as essentially fun and playful. It is like society has embraced the emotional aspects of masculinity and the material side of femininity. I will always fight for a world where I can fit in too, where I can be nonchalant about my looks and primarily focused on my relationships with other people. In my women's studies classes, feminism seemed abysmally first order. The women who taught it seemed primarily concerned with proving that the study of feminism measured up in the masculine world. It was all about intellectual toughness, about a scholarly pissing contest, even when the scholars had nothing to piss with. I would love to see feminism expand its diversity to include not just issues of identity politics, but to make room for traditionally feminine creatures. It would be nice if those of us who would do anything for a man or woman we loved, who are more collective than individual, more relational than independent, could come to the table to enact radical changes in the culture. I think that when feminism learns to value the emotionally feminine woman, we will be on our way to radically changing the culture to value traditionally feminine qualities.