I've been pretty darned remiss in posting, lately, but not nearly so much as one of my blog-dulgences, TexasWhip. I don't know where those guys have disappeared to. My excuse? I've been hosting guests, working overtime a lot and we're in the process of buying a house, so I have to spend my freetime freaking out.
Since we've been waiting for Battlestar Galatica to resume for season 3, Honey and I have been catching up on that more mainstream TV phenom, Lost. The pilot was so-so, but I've been surprised how quickly we've been drawn in. We're loading up on season one on Netflix. It's crazy. Lost falls into common sentimental traps of TV writing at least once every episode or two, but for the most part, the story is really fascinating. I love the X-files feel to everything. Freaks my ass out. And I recently discovered that the actor who plays the hottie Iraqi soldier, Sayid, for whom I must mop up my drool, is also the same actor who played the lucious Sikh soldier, Kip in the English Patient.
On another note ... Thursday night, a girlfriend and I went to see another mutual girlfriend perform in a play. The show was written in '75 or '76, but basically at the height of the modern feminist movement. I question the director's choice to remount the show. It was just five women monologuing on their lives (our friend's performance, btw, was the best part of the show; she was the most natural and played the most levels. She's almost as much a delight to watch as she is to know.). While I sat there listening to this show, it suddenly occured to me that the basic sentiments being expressed in this piece were the underlying reasons why I feel guilty for not being a bigger breadwinner in my family, for actually wanting to have babies and, on very rare occasions, for being married. The gist of the monologuing women's pieces was this: "My life was what it was: sometimes good, sometimes bad, but my own. And then I met a man and had children, or an abortion. My life was never my own after that and I'm miserable." The only character who wasn't miserable was loopy. The play told me, "You should not be happy." It was also kind of like, between the lines, I could hear the 80s Barbie, saying, "Molly, I told you, 'We girls can do anything!' It's 2006! You're not doing the 'anything' things I was trying to inspire you to do! You may as well be one of these characters!"
I bore in mind that the show was written in the 70s and 30 years ago, this was probably the perfect piece. There's gotta be a period in every social movement when those who are moving up have to work through the demons of why they're moving up. I'm suspicious of groups who do not vent emotionally. But I really failed to see how this piece was compelling today. Though the womens' emotional experiences may not have been anachronistic entirely, it seemed their social experiences were so too far removed from my own understanding of women in America, today (ie, the thought that you can't go to college, just because you're a woman) that it just rang self-important and insincere. All of this could be a by-product of the play's production not supporting the material as well as it could have. I don't know.
To recap, the play tells me: "Marriage makes you lose your sense of self. Family suffocates you. It is better to be lost alone than a lost matron. You should not want these things." But here is what I know: I love my husband with all my being - even when he drives me nuts. I love my marriage with all my heart. And I am very, very happy with both. And for those reasons, I really did not like the theme of the play, as I perceived it. But I definitely congratulate my girlfriend on her performance. Darling, you made that show bearable and thank you, for actually finding the humor in the piece!
6 comments:
As much as I may agree with the ideals of feminism, a lot of the rhetoric that is wrapped up in the movement is plain ridiculous. I have a number of female friends who consider themselves feminists but happen to be housewives or enjoy knitting or don't want to climb their way up the corporate latter and they're essentially tired of either feeling guilty for choosing paths or enjoying things that are traditionally feminine (and thus traditionally counter to feminism). That reminds me a lot of what you're posting here.
There is a general cultural value set in America that anyone can be anything; the subtext of that, though, is that you have an obligation to fulfill that potential. I've faced this, ironically, since I cut back my work to a few hours a month a couple years ago: this attitude that I'm being selfish or lazy or that I'm not living up to my potential - all because I'm comfortable with what I have and am not demanding what I consider excess. It's really interesting.
Of course, at the same time, I find that a lot of the ideals of feminism might be applied to people as a whole - anyone who is in a position of feeling disempowered. And yet, at the same time, are comfortable with where they're at. I know many women who complain about how male dominated society is but at the same time don't feel much desire to change it - and perhaps they're really not that unhappy with it. It's similar to people I know who bitch about their employer and having to do other people's biddings, but they'd never consider starting their own business or even looking for a different job. They prefer the stability, even if it has its tradeoffs.
Oh, onto another topic. Katie got me into Lost which has been my Gateway show into the addiction of Television. I've watched maybe 20 hours total of television in the last decade and now in the last month I've watched at least five series (Lost, Deadwood, Nip/Tuck, Soppranos, Firefly and possibly more). I still don't enjoy watching shows on television, mostly because I don't like my schedule being dictated, but I've found the programming to be much better than the stock sitcoms that I was raised with and never acquired a taste for.
Anyway, so going back to Lost, after we caught up with and subsequently became completely engrossed in Season 1 we started watching Season 2 on television weekly and it hasn't been quite as fulfilling. I think a large part of that is the overarching story is becoming more complex and so not as much happens per episode; if we were watching them on DVD this wouldn't be an issue, but when you have to wait a week (and sometimes four) between each new episode and nothing is being resolved it can get a bit tiring. Also, some of the characters that you really latch onto early in Season 1 start to get polarized into archtypes that are more difficult to relate to. I can't say that I don't enjoy Season 2, but I'm thinking I'd prefer to have watched it in a few sittings on DVD. In some ways its much more intense, in other ways it seems to be missing the mark. It'll be interesting to hear what you two think of it.
this is a heavy topic, i want to see this play . . .
OK, let me get this straight, so it's your husband that's driving you nuts?
There are many things in my life that are driving me nuts, presently. Honey is not currently one of them, but as per close relationships, sometimes the ones you love most make you insane the most. I suppose I used that clause to take the saccharine edge off the leading statement: "I love him with all my being," because frankly I hate it when people sound all gooey gushy, even when it's true!
I've had a lot of crazy stuff going on, which is why I haven't been posting on the Whip.
Post a Comment