Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Can you clarify what you mean by enjoying daydreams, etx w/sexist
    overtones?

    WHAT??????????????????
    
    

    I believe it is wrong to kill. I _really_ do.  I believe also that it
    is wrong to willfully maim.  I _really_ do.
    
    Yet, I have a good deal of anger that gets directed into a fairly
    lurid collection of fantasies.  By embracing them, most of the anger is
    dissipated.
    
    I have absolutely no desire to act upon my fantasies.  I _really_
    don't.  The reality would emotionally devastating.
    
    I know this because I cry when I smash bees trying to catch and free
    them.  It is not the eyes of the world that judge me, but my own heart.
    
    By the same token, I believe that to daydream of some strong soul
    taking care of me is a mechanism for bleeding off the pressures that
    arise from just living a [reasonably] responsible life.  I don't really
    want that...I'd much rather be competent and self-determining than
    dependent.
    
    That's reality.
    
      Annie

    re .0, just because I'd like to have Richard Gere carry me away
    from my office to live happily ever after, like he did Debra Winger
    in An Officer & A Gentleman" doesn't mean that I don't want other
    women to have the same options in life as most men do.  Besides,
    even though I'd like to have Richard Gere rescue me, I know he's
    not going to.  Sometimes we know we have to be able to deal with
    reality, but that doesn't mean that if we had a choice we wouldn't
    really rather have something else.
    
    Lorna
    

Because we're all people raised in a complex and sexist society, each with our
own set of kinks. 
	Mez

    All the romantic novels I read while growing up were incredibly sexist.
    Poor young girl (preferably orphan) meets tall, dark, rich, handsome
    man ... So were the movies and everything else around me. So Yes, I
    have enjoyed sexist daydreams and fantasies where someone comes and
    "rescues" me. I don't want any of that to happen in reality. In fact,
    I hate it when people try to "take care of me".
    
    I think many of us have such contradictions within us because it's
    difficult to reject everything you were brought up to believe. It's
    easier to do it on a rational conscious level but takes time to change
    the unconscious, deep-rooted beliefs.

    
    Re .1
    
    Hopefully to clarify (I found that basenote really hard to word)...
     
    Dreams or daydreams based on *enjoying* giving up responsibility for
    yourself or your actions and giving that responsibility to a male
    "image". (Maybe sexist wasn't the right word to use). 
    
    E.g. being rescued, swept off your feet, giving all responsibility to a
    tall dark handsome stranger, and possibly images of being sexually 
    dominated (when that's not your usual conscious choice).
    
    
     

    Its interesting... having a man sweep me off my feet sure sounds
    romantic, but having him have control, is not. My lover flipped me over
    last night and carried me into a bedroom. Rather unceremoniously, and
    in front of several people. It was a gag, but its also a reminder. You
    lose control when you're not standing on your own two feet. And that
    isn't a good thing for me. Certainly not for very long. And lord help
    us both if he drops me!
    
    A fantasy that seems far less sexist but is on a lot of people's minds
    is winning fantastic sums of money. Getting a whopping inheritance out
    of the blue. That kind of thing. It has nothing to do with
    relenquishing control. It has everything to do with being financially
    secure for life.
    
    Sometimes, that dream gets addictive enough the people plunk down their
    dollars to chase after it. I don't think that's a good thing, but its
    not sexist.

    
    I've toyed with the idea after having read it in several novels.  In
    the context of a story about someone else - someone gorgeous or
    romantic or seductive or society-minded or to-the-manor-born or 
    whatever - it can be interesting.
    
    But in the context of me it would be frightening.  I must admit I am
    the first person to give in when a relationship requires giving, but
    not to that extent.  The thought of having someone control me and my
    life and deciding what I want when is scary!
    
    Of course, if someone were rescuing me like in "Romancing the Stone",
    and I was clueless about the terrain or how to get where I was going,
    then I guess I'd *have* to depend on him that way... and I can picture
    taking a back seat if he should know more about something than I
    should, but to take the back seat at all times, in all matters, is
    not my cup of tea, even in a fantasy....
    
    -Jody
    

    In a fantasy the man who sweeps you off your feet might appear to
    be controlling you, but he would actually be doing only what you
    wanted him to since we *are* in control of our own fantasies.  In
    real life it's more dangerous to let men have control because they
    probably won't agree with us on everything.
    
    Lorna
    

    Our culture is, generally, sexist.  Fairy tales, even many nursery
    rhymes ("Jack fell down and broke his crown, and Jill came tumbling
    after") are rooted in sexism.  The message is fairly clear that, for
    girls, a dream-come-true is to marry a handsome prince.  And that
    those who do don't actively work for it, they are "noticed", much
    like talent scouts "notice" actresses or models and "turn them into
    stars".  This is "success for girls", goes the message.  This is
    "the perfect world", where everyone "lives happily ever after".

    Ceding control presumes a world where you really can "live happily
    ever after".  And that world is part of the fantasy - the tall dark
    handsome man who carries you away won't turn out to be a rapist or
    serial killer.  It's a world where it's safe to assume that the 
    handsome prince isn't already married, that the two of you will stay
    madly in love, and that he doesn't drink himself into a stupor on a
    nightly basis and will always be able to afford the heating bills on 
    that drafty castle.  It's childhood all over again - an abrogation of 
    reponsibility.  In fantasy, you can trust the Big People to take care 
    of you exactly the way you'd like to take care of... while you sit back
    and get lots of attention.

    That part is not necessarily sexist.  Being able to sit back, put
    your guard down, and have others take care of you while you get center
    stage without trying is probably a very common fantasy among both men
    and women.  I think it takes expression in sexist fantasies, however, 
    because those are most easily accessible.  For feminist women, fairy-tale
    fantasies are also clearly and safely marked as fantasies, in convenient 
    vacuum packs suitable for the microwave.  They won't leak into real 
    life leaving you with a desire to abrogate control... like society 
    often hints it would like you to.  Your conscious mind knows there's 
    no danger involved -- that besides this being a dream you wouldn't want 
    to have come true, the chances that it would are infintessimally small.
    It bears no resemblance to real life.
    
    So, I think the sexist nature of many of these fantasies is a reflection 
    of a sexist culture which makes them so accessible.  (After all, if 
    you're going to fantasize about letting your feminist guard down and 
    lazily abrogating control, the last thing you want to do spend the time
    to cook it up from scratch so it's as non-sexist as possible first).  I 
    don't in any way find that indulging in fairy-tale fantasies compromises
    women's sincerity as feminists.  Quite the contrary, in fact.

	Sharon

    re: .12  Doctah
    
    At a guess, I would say that Jack did something and Jill followed him.
    
    This is a typical pattern.  It's rare that female characters in fairy
    tales START something or DO something ... usually they follow or are
    acted upon (kidnapped (Rapunzel), put under a spell (Rumplestiltskin,
    Snow White), etc.).
    
    Pam

    
    I wish I could remember this more acurately, perhaps someone else has
    the exact reference?
    
    Anyway...
    
    A bunch of nursery rhymes are couched in lyrical double-talk of the
    times in which they were written...for instance...ring arounf the
    rosey, which is a children's play rhyme today was actually written
    about the rash [rosey] that you got before you came down with the
    plague...[ashes, ashes {they burned the corpses} we all fall dead]
    
    RE: Jack...
    
    I believe the translation goes something like:
    
    	Jack and Jill went up a hill [this is some reference to
    					a seedy section of London]
    	To fetch a pail of water [and water is symbolical of intercourse]
    
    	Jack fell down and broke his crown [he became aroused and
    						his {ahem} male member
    						became aparant]
    	And Jill came tumbling after [the lady in question acquiesced to
    						his desires]
    
    There are whole volumes [mostly boring regardless of the 'hidden'
    subjects] that translate the local 'coded' vernacular of the times
    [whcih were straight-laced and prohibited such vulgar stories] into the
    topics they were actually discussing.
    
    On top of that...you have the religious symbology of the era to deal
    with...where every word had two meanings...one the usage meaning and
    the other a religious symbolic meaning...so if you wrote about white
    violets you were really writing about fidelity...
    
    Sort of like wheels within wheels within...
    
    Melinda

    Not to discredit what you were saying, Melinda, but that's not what
    I had in mind.  I was thinking more of the mental picture drawn by
    the average child:  Jack and Jill carry buckets up a hill to the
    well.

    The sexist part?  Well, Jack falls, and breaks his crown (I won't
    even get into why it was Jack wearing the crown in the first place).  
    Jill does not do either of the obviously intelligent things here: 
    she does not seek medical help for Jack, and she does not continue 
    down the hill bearing her pail of water.  No.  She follows his actions 
    (or is made to follow his actions) unquestioning (or else that part is 
    conveniently forgotten by the storyteller).  It may not be objectively 
    sexist, but at the very least it's a major assault on female intelligence.

    How about this: "Jack and Jill went up the corporate ladder, to get
    a greater profit.  Jack fell down and broke his crown, and Jill came
    tumbling after".  Sexist in implication?  I think so.

	Sharon

    Fantasies are normal and healthy, everyone has them. Even fantasies that
    would be "sick" or "repulsive" if you acted on them are perfectly normal.
    They are an escape valve for impulses and emotions that we MUST censor to
    have a working society.

    Acting on such fantasies would be sick and anti-social. Feeling guilty
    about having these fantasies is also unhealthy, but unfortunately
    widespread. Our society encourages the belief that fantasy = reality, and
    as a corollary encourages the belief that having "sick", "weird", or
    "unnatural" fantasies is the same as being sick, weird, or unnatural. Some
    of this attitude is evident from such phrases as "the thought is as good
    as the deed", "lusting in your heart is the same as adultery" and so on.
    This is NOT healthy.

    Repressing your fantasies or feeling shame about them is unhealthy and
    ultimately futile. There is nothing wrong with sexist FANTASIES, there is
    everything in the world wrong with acting on them or mistaking them for
    reality. It is also wrong to be ashamed of them, or to try to make others
    ashamed of having them.

	-- Charles

    
    Sharon,
    
    [..don't see how what you said could discredit me...but that aside...]
    
    Two things...
    
    First, I don't think the 'average' child has anything more than the
    picture of two chums running up the hill and one of them falling down
    and the other falling down after. I think it takes a lot of convoluted 
    adult thinking to conclude that Jill didn't do anything logical or
    intelligent in response to a crisis. Jeez, Jack was exhibiting some
    pretty low-key moves himself to fall down...[which if we follow the
    suggested logic of sexism, he would never have been allowed to do since
    it shows weakness in the first place.]
    
    I think that if this latter-day rhyme were intended to be sexist as you
    have explained sexism, it would have been Jill who messed up and Jack who 
    saved the day.
    
    Second, there *is* a lot of sexism in Nursery rhymes...but it comes
    from their origins, not from their modern-day interpretations. I think
    it begs the question to accuse a piece of literature [sic] written 2 or
    3 centuries ago of sexist intentions in 'terms of today's culture'. It
    wasn't written in or for today's culture.
    
    They were/are indeed sexist...but in a bawdy way...not with the
    intention of demeaning. It is my position as a professional woman in
    today's work place that makes see the other aspect...not the words or
    intent of the author.
    
    Only my opinion.
    
    Melinda                                   

	Rescue me, come on and rescue me.

	When one is under stress - one wants relief from pressure.

	A one time or even a short term "rescue" from responsibility
	is not the same as tuning over total control to another.

	Anytime I am in deep stuff I don't mind anyone coming to 
	sweep me away from it all - that is unless I have it all
	under control and am working my way back.

	The fantasy about have someone sweep you away is both a male
	and a female remembrance of early childhood when there was
	someone who would come and rescue us from trouble (though
	to some of us it may have been them that we needed to be
	rescued from).

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Just a weak timid little 'ole thing
			who can move mountains when she wants.

	Re: Jack & Jill


	Well, waddaya know?  Here all this time (when I stopped to
	think about it at all) I thought that Jack & Jill fell down
	the hill because they slipped in some mud around the well or 
	something.



	>>AL<<

    Al
    
    I did too :-).........
    
    Bonnie

    Well, actually, Jack and Jill represent the constellations
    Perseus and Andromeda, and the story relates certain
    cosmological alignments.

    
    re:.0 (!)
    maybe i'm just a terribly serious person under this flip exterior,
    but i don't understand it either. my favorite example is 'sexy'
    lingerie. i really do not understand why a modern, liberated,
    independent woman would want to wear something that, as far as i
    can fathom, exists solely for male amusement in a context fraught
    with sexism.
    

	What's one more rodent....

Re: Sharon's previous comment on why was Jack wearing a crown...

	"Crown" in this sense probably doen't mean "a head covering worn as
a sign of sovereignty" but probably means "skull". (Wander through a bit
of the Bard, and I'm reasonably sure you'll find it used that way.)


						--D

    Doug
    
    I'm pretty sure that was the original meaning intended by the poem.
    
    The second verse goes
    
    "and up Jack got and home did trot
    as fast as he could caper
    he went to bed and wrapped his head
    with vinegar and brown paper'
    
    the nursery rhyme book I had showed jack in bed with a bandaged
    head.
    
    Bonnie

    If a tree falls in the woods...
    
    If the reader of a rhyme or the person having a fantasy doesn't know
    that they are supposed to symbolise something else, then they don't.
    So, a fantasy is valid only in the context of the person having it. If
    you don't *feel* used or abused in your fantasy then you aren't and it's
    not sexist. Besides, as was said earlier, you are in control of your
    fantasy, it only provides as much danger as you allow. 

    I think we have religion to thank for the idea that thinking is as bad as
    doing. If that's really true ain't nobody going to heaven.  liesl

    Okay folks... so I was wrong about Jack and Jill.  I haven't read
    the rhyme for around 2 decades now, and I guess it shows.  And I'm
    not sure I *ever* read the whole thing... I had a pretty condensed
    book of nursery rhymes growing up.

    But I think my point about fairy tales, at least, still stands.

	Sharon

    
    	RE: .29  Doctah
    
    	"Jack 'n' Jill" was just an example to demonstrate a principle.
    	
    	I'm sure it wasn't meant to be the cornerstone of anyone's
    	personal crusade.
    
    	Just because the demo didn't pan out doesn't mean that the
    	dynamic is completely invalid.
    

    
    Re: fairytales
    There's a book of "modern fairytales" by Jack Zipes called 
    "Don't Bet on the Prince". 
    Apart from being the tales being a GREAT read (humourous, instructive, 
    view-changing) it also contains a few essays of feminist criticism of
    the most widely read fairytales (largely Grimm and the Blue/Green/Red Fairy 
    books).
    
    The basic thrust of the argument is that fairytales were, and maybe
    still are, used as a way of teaching girl-children their "place"
    in society. 
                        
    Many examples are shown of how the female figure (you can hardly
    call them "heroines") are taught to be passive, silent and non-action
    orientated - this ties in with another thread whereby the female
    figure is taught to value herself purely in terms of her physical
    "beauty", and to see herself as a passive prize to be won - a chattle
    to be claimed by a suitably active "hero".
    
    'gail
     

    
    Re -1
    Ah well, Eagle, they just live "happily ever after" don't they?
    No details given in the fairytales.....for good reason, no doubt.
    
    Anyway, as the princess is a "prize" one may surmise that she would
    need to do no more than sit around like, say, the average sports
    trophy. Her "action man" would be too busy displaying the talents
    that he gets strokes for (e.g. killing dragons and climbing glass
    mountains) to have time for a "relationship".
    And kids?
    Well, I guess all the little girls would need is a mother to read them
    fairytales and the little boys would be off hunting with their
    father so that they can win a prize later...
         
    'gail 
    'gail 

Having "take me away!" fantasies, or even *geniune* *desires* (which, as we
have discussed before, are not the same), is not incompatible with feminism.

Feminists (in theory) want all women to make their own choices.  Including
the chioce to be "swept of their feet".  Or not to be.

Therefore I believe that there is no such thing as an anti-feminist woman's
fantasy, because by definition a woman fantasizing is a woman excersizing her
right to choose.

D!

    RE: .36
    
    Agreed! I don't understand some people's linking of the erotic and
    sexism. There's no relationship whatever. Sexism is a power trip,
    designed to keep women from having power. Power has nothing to do
    with sex.
    
    Eileen
    
    

    re: a few notes back.
    
    Fantasizing of someone coming and rescuing me when I'm under pressure
    is one thing. Fantasizing of getting into trouble so someone can come
    and rescue you is another. eg. fantasies of going on a hike and
    spraining my ankle. Or the other way around, when I would be doing
    some "nurturing" type of rescue work. Both were extremely sexist and
    I'm sure had somthing to do with all the aweful novels I read.
    
    Quite independently, it would've been nice to have some good romances
    around. I was addicted to them then. I hated each one of them and yet
    read them compulsively. It was my harmones I guess.

    :37
    
    >Agreed! I don't understand some people's linking of the erotic and
    >sexism. There's no relationship whatever. Sexism is a power trip,
    >designed to keep women from having power. Power has nothing to do
    >with sex.
    
    How about the power to have sex, with whomever you want to have it with?
    
    I think that makes a very strong link, right there.
    
    -roger
    
    
    
    
                                                                     

    <--(.36)
    
    Bingo, D!

        As I read these replies I found myself wondering if men having
        fantasies of being cared for by woman--and there are lots of
        "back to when mama cared for me" fantasies flaoting around in
        male heads--was sexist or what. It seems to me only human to
        have both fantasies of being the center of someone else's sexual
        world, served by them, and to have someone else be the
        protective center of yours. I think both are common to both
        sexes.
        
        I shared the response of early replies--"What's a 'sexist
        fantasy'?"
        
        I agree that letting either extreme dominate your life (and
        perhaps even letting it dominate your fantasy life) is not
        healthy, but that a very wide range of fantasies, including lots
        that would be unhealthy to act out is perfectly normal.
        
        The notion that men are all tough and don't have submissive
        fantasies along with dominant ones is hokum put out by men who
        are too insecure in their own image or by folk who want men to
        act in only one way. Men are pretty normal sorts of human
        beings, just like women.
        
        In actuallity both truly dominant men and men who are always
        dominated have fantasies of being submissive and cared for. The
        dominant men because they want relief from the pressures and
        responsibilities of being dominant, and the dominated because
        they want the comfort of strength and protection.
        
        I suspect women are the same. I wouldn't think less of a woman
        because she had either sort, nor would I classify either
        submissive/protected or dominating fantasies as "sexist".
        
        JimB.

    
    My niece (age 8) has a somewhat different version:
    
    	Jack and Jill went up the hill
    	To fetch a pail of gingerale.
    	Jack fell down and broke his crown,
    	And Jill went off to the movies.
    
    I won't speculate on whether the source is her (stongly feminist) mother.
    
    		- Bruce