They're supposed to
tell us about ourselves, but does that mean we're all the same?
January
6, 2007
SPRINKLED
AMONG the novels and political tracts I received for Christmas
was a clothbound piece of candy called "The Female Thing." It
was written by Laura Kipnis, a Northwestern University professor
best known for 2003's "Against Love: A Polemic," and
its cover is a frontal photo of a woman's toned, depilated thighs,
hips and belly, one hand posed sassily on her hip and the other
holding a thin leaf over her privates. Naturally, I plucked it
from the stack immediately, leaving Richard Ford and Jimmy Carter
to lie in pitiable wait.
It's not
my job here to review books, so I won't get into too much detail
about the contents of "The Female Thing." Which is probably
good, because while I found it a little bit fascinating and a little
bit exasperating, I'm not entirely sure what the book is trying
to say. Its frequent refrains about the tension between "femininity
and feminism" puts it squarely in the camp of woman-centered
punditry that makes me want to throw books against the wall, then
instantly retrieve them and fret that I've lost my place.
Dozens of
books like this are published every year. You can spot them by
their tendency to juxtapose references to boob jobs and Manolo
Blahnik shoes with words such as "subjugation." They
like to use the word "bitch," strictly in a "take
back the vocabulary of our oppression" sort of way. They appear
to be targeted at a reasonably intelligent (i.e. NPR-listening,
HBO-watching, buying-the-Jimmy-Carter-book-but-not-reading-it-right-away)
audience. An intelligent female audience, that is. I'm not sure
whether any man on Earth has ever read one of these things, but
if he did, I suspect he'd make the very wise decision to turn gay.
According
to this literary genre, contemporary American women are conflicted,
confused, vain and bitter, not to mention (choose one; we're all
about choice) undersexed or oversexed, underemployed or overworked,
man-hating or desperate for a man. We are also apparently even
more obsessed with dirty socks than were our Stepford forebears.
This is not
the kind of stuff you brag about on your resume or in an online
personal ad. So why have so many women — cultural critics,
novelists and self-help gurus alike — built their careers
on this humiliating form of advertising copy? For all the lip service
we pay to the opportunities born of feminism, why does our most
impassioned rhetoric come from a place of weakness and frustration?
The simple
answer is that some of these characterizations are true, particularly
of women who have enough disposable time and money to ponder their
lots in life. In a world in which wrinkles are unacceptable, women
are getting Botox (and breast implants, liposuction and eyelid
lifts). In a world in which "raising kids" has had a
job-title change to "parenting" (an executive position
that seems to require advanced degrees, an airtight schedule and,
for the lucky few, a support staff), women do wonder whether they
should bother trying to make law partner. As for marriage, hasn't
it always seesawed between mildly amusing and downright stultifying?
Who are we to assume that things should be any different because
it's 2007 and couples can talk to each other about all the fascinating
blogs they read?
So, yes,
women are kind of messed up. But the degree to which these books
are true is equal to the degree to which they're not true. For
every wife who complains about dirty socks, there's another whose
husband insists on neurotically folding them into perfect spheres.
For every fading ingenue whose self-loathing and insecurity (or
is it self-entitlement and ego?) drive her to the plastic surgeon's
office, there's one (actually, more than one) who sees no shame
in extra-large sweatpants. And for every marriage that looks like
a tour through hell, there's one that looks like stratospheric
bliss — sometimes these poles can exist within the same marriage
on the same day.
Yet we're
gluttons for bad news about ourselves. Publishers know this, which
is why they don't commission a lot of books that say, "Hey,
everyone's different. Don't look here for sweeping cultural statements
based on cherry-picked statistics and drunken rant sessions lifted
from a bachelorette party." They know that readers want exactly
the thing I was looking for when I selected my post-holiday reading
last week. I wanted to be told who I was. I didn't want the equivalent
of years with a shrink, figuring out my own pathology; I wanted
an hour with a palm reader telling me my misery wasn't selfperpetuated,
but controlled by cosmic forces to which I was not accountable.
It can be
exhilarating to see complicated personal issues dressed up as trends.
We devour these books because they blame history or politics or
anatomy for problems we might not even know we have, and they remind
us that we're members of a vast group in an important era. They
assure us that we're not alone. Unfortunately, they also suggest
that we're all the same. I may be a sucker for these screeds, but
I still wish someone would come along and say, "If the Manolo
Blahnik doesn't fit, don't wear it."