Yes, I’m wearing a skirt right now, let that not color the following.
I just had my sisters over for our monthly tea and, as it often does, conversation briefly touched on politics. And, as I do when it does, I did not say anything. My sisters are all much more conservative than I (starting with #5, who votes Republican; then #4, who things Republicans are too liberal; and finally #2, who votes Constitution Party because Republicans are too liberal on some things and not liberal enough on others).
The political comment in question was “Hillary should be more ladylike”. Followed by a brief discussion of how great it was that Obama held a chair for her at the beginning and end of a particular debate. And how wonderful it is that he’s being so gentlemanly. Which just goes to show, he’s popular among conservatives, too. I wondered vaguely if this was seen as some sort of putting-her-in-her-place by my sisters, but, again, held my tongue.
“What do you think, #6?” said #4 (and yes, we do often refer to each other by number, though not usually in conversations ;), to which I responded, “I think my political views are not welcome at this table.” Which got some put-her-at-ease laughter, and some more pressure.
All of these sisters wear skirts all the time. All of them believe that a woman should quit her job when married. So I was asked which Democratic candidate I would vote for, and I told them (Obama) followed by a caveat that I don’t vote Democratic because they’re too conservative for me. This prompted some fantastically uncomfortable laughter, and then I said,
“I think all candidates in any political sphere could benefit from more civility but I think that acting more “ladylike”, as #2 suggests would make Hillary seem inappropriate for a leadership role. Since that is what she is angling for, I don’t think that “ladylike” will benefit her.”
Talk turned to McCain, who could also use some additional civility (and was clearly the best of the choices mentioned so far, to my sisters) and then to Margaret Thatcher. Who is the best of all worlds as a conservative woman. “She was so classy!” said #5. To which I responded, “Hillary might well benefit from more class, but I don’t define that as being more ladylike.” [Of course, Ms. Thatcher is a Baroness, so she arguably has more class than any American ever could.]
Which got me thinking about “ladylike”. I have often said that “I ain’t no lady” and gotten mock-offended at people who presumed to call me such. I’ve also often said, (especially after working in an office and starting to actually where a skirt, an activity I rebelled against for much of my life) that you can put a skirt on a woman, but you can’t make her a lady. Being ladylike has always seemed, in my mind, to denote being demure, behind-the-scenes, and, above all, submissive. None of these are adjectives I ever want applied to me. None of these are adjectives I would ever apply to Hillary. As much as I disagree with her, I respect her; and it’s difficult for me to respect “ladies”.
I’m sure that other peoples definitions of “ladylike” would involve some additional skills, like knowing which fork to use, or cutting with your right hand; but even if I were to marry a Lord, I would object to the title of Lady. If he were a Baron, I would insist on Baroness, for example. There are connotations to “lady” that I am glad to not apply to the only woman ever to get this far in a presidential bid.
This morning, I dressed for tea: a skirt and nice top, with appropriate earrings. And so I was actually in a skirt during this conversation, but for some reason, it brought to mind the fact that all these sisters wear skirts; all the time. And most often, I wear jeans. (Even to tea, but today I hosted.) I see skirts as a way to combat the heat of LA: you get a nice draft that’s so great that I want to get my husband into utilikilts. Sometimes, as a way to show of my awesome legs. Occasionally, as a means of securing privacy while peeing in the forest. But my sisters see it as something more…something…ladylike. Which makes me think that they see pants as un-ladylike. And I’m very uncomfortable with gendered (anything) clothing. I’m a huge fan of boy-beaters (although I think men who wear them are of questionable morals, I don’t see it as a non-masculine article of clothing), I like skirts on men, I think bras are unnecessary for most men, but still don’t really see it as a gendered article of clothing. The only gendered article of clothing I can call to mind is the jock strap (which still makes me giggle: who invented that?!).
I guess this is just a rant about the differences between my world-view and that of my sisters. Am I wrong? Does “ladylike” ever denote something positive (in the sense that it could also be used, positively, to describe a man; a non-gendered positive), or is it always passive, submissive, and female? A girl in my apartment complex held the door for me the other day, while I was slowly making my way tot he laundry room with a full basket. I told her not to worry, that she needn’t wait for me. “Holding a door open only takes a second,” she replied. Good on her! Holding doors, coats, and chairs should be something people do for each other, not something men do for women.
The above was merely a case of the vapors, pay no attention to this lady’s ramblings.
8 responses so far ↓
1 xJane // Mar 10, 2008 at 3:52 pm
incidentally, I think a lot of this ties in to the alleged emasculation of men by strong women
2 Elaine // Mar 10, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Okay. It’s been a really long day, and my patience got exhausted, oh, about two this afternoon (and it’s after 11 p.m. now), so if any of what follows sounds cranky…it probably is.
Oh, well.
First of all, those men who feel emasculated by strong women need to get a grip. Seriously. If a man’s sense of himself as a man is a function of being able to dominate women, he needs to get himself some professional help, quick. I say this as the daughter of a man who was quite properly masculine but who was also “liberated”, for lack of a better word. He liked his women smart and strong.
Which brings us to being labeled “ladylike”…not something I’ve often been accused of being. In fact, I have been told emphatically from time to time that I lack that quality to a farily serious degree. Like the people at the Mormon church (and I heard this more than once) who felt it important to let me know that my interest in science just wasn’t ladylike. Apparently, I didn’t worry enough about things like waxy yellow buildup on the kitchen linoleum or something. (Two points, by the way, to anyone who can pinpoint the source of that pop culture reference.)
Maybe I don’t have any room to comment, because I’ve never been very good at being ladylike. I just never saw very much fun in it. It had, the way I was exposed to it, too much to do with wearing dresses (never one of my favorite things), sitting with the other “girls” and gossiping, never having an opinion, and either being helpless or acting like it in order not to alienate the “boys”.
So, no, as I’ve been exposed to the idea and the practice of being “ladylike”, I’ve never really seen it as a positive thing.
3 chandelle // Mar 11, 2008 at 6:43 am
i’ve never seen it as a positive thing either.
Does “ladylike” ever denote something positive (in the sense that it could also be used, positively, to describe a man; a non-gendered positive)…
no.
…or is it always passive, submissive, and female?
yes.
of course, one of my goals in life is to smash culturally-constructed gender so, ya know, maybe i’m biased.
awesome post!
4 chandelle // Mar 11, 2008 at 6:44 am
“I told them (Obama) followed by a caveat that I don’t vote Democratic because they’re too conservative for me. ”
hey, you and me, babe! word for word.
5 Jonathan Blake // Mar 11, 2008 at 2:34 pm
It seems risky to jump into these waters with a slightly contrary opinion, but here I go.
Being “ladylike” certainly has very oppressive ideas associated with it, and I have little room to talk since I’ve never been on the wrong end of that bludgeon, but the word “lady” also has very different connotations for me. Along with all those negative ideas, it also brings to my mind a sense of grace, tact, sophistication, education, and strength.
So keep in mind that if someone calls you a lady, they might have some very positive ideas behind that appellation, mixed perhaps with some of the negative.
On the strong woman question, in the public sphere, I totally agree. People, men and women, need to get used to strong female leadership. In private (I don’t know if anyone had this in mind), I have a harder time blaming someone for wanting a partner who fits their own personality. I’m not suggesting men (or women) should be excused for being domineering or abusive. Goodness forbid! I’m suggesting that some people don’t want their partner to be constantly challenging them and competing against them. Others like that. To each their own.
6 wren // Mar 11, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I think everyone brings their own perspective to the definitions. I grew up around women and men who opened doors for people and among my peers both in school and out in the workforce, it’s been the same thing.
If someone holds a door for me, super, I don’t care what their gender is. I’ve heard women flip out about a guy holding a door for them. That I don’t get at all. I suppose their perspective is that men who do that think of them as weak. As for me, someone’s motivation doesn’t enter into my mind. My bitch would be if someone’s walking through a door in front of me and let’s the door slam as I’m almost to it.
In my mind, I personally would equate being ladylike or gentlemanly as gendered ways of saying someone is a class act, tactful, thoughtful, kind, and above reproach. In others’ minds, being ladylike might mean wearing dresses, speaking in calm soothing tones, and batting one’s eyelashes coyly.
If that’s the sort of lady one wants to be, that’s okay too. If anything, when others bring up being not not being ladylike, it bring up a great opportunity to discuss what exactly each other’s perspectives are.
As women, I think we walk a line that should be tread carefully because we (the collective we) have fought too long and too hard to tear each other down. On one side is defending what is right for you (the collective you) and on the other side is being critical of other women’s choices who do like the more traditional roles. It’s important we continually reach out to clarify and educate each other on what informs our choices. That way we can all make different choices and let go of the judgments.
7 xJane // Mar 11, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Jonathan Blake: Jonathan Blake: thanx for weighing in, a discussion isn’t as much fun without dissent. Even when you’re wrong!!! (j/k ;))
I’m actually with you on the “lady” front to some extent. For the most part, people who say “lady” mean it as a complement. But, again, for the most part, people who say “lady” are men. I have rarely heard it used as a complement by women and, when a man uses it, most women get offended: it’s seen as a slight by most of us. Then, of course, the Battle of the Sexes rages because Man was just trying to complement Woman and now he has Women ganging up on him. As well they might (I’ve participated in a similar conversation over at Sunstone Blog, where a man unwittingly called us all “ladies” and then ended up embroiled in “but I meant it as a complement…!”)
I guess I see it somewhere around “kid”. A 14 or 15 year old may well be insulted when called a “kid”, but they can hardly dispute it’s what they are. Sensitive adults, perhaps, would know better. But the 14 or 15 year old would rarely use it for his or her own peers. “Lady” is very often a dominance thing: it gets used to put us in our place. And try to make us act more “ladylike”.
And I’m curious about your comment about “having a partner who fits their own personality”. That gets us into a whole nother debate, which, if you want us to have, I’d be happy to start a new thread on.
Wren: I know it’s a fine line and I try to walk it carefully. The lives my sisters have chosen are not the life I want. But when they assume that everyone wants what they do, it makes me want to knock their heads together. And, I’m sure when I do it, they are possessed of the same desire; I try not to “tear down” women who have chosen the “traditional” role. But when those women intentionally make it harder for those who want to be free of it, I have issues. Ladies and women alike should beon the same side of the fence. It is often clear when we are not.
8 xJane // Mar 14, 2008 at 3:36 pm
and lest anyone think I’m odd for emphasizing the mode of dress (currently, I’m wearing jeans), an article by the androgenously named Gerrie Goguen in January’s New Oxford Review titled “Church, Women & Pants” hammers home the fact that feminism is, in fact, the source of all things evil. Things like pants:
This runs contrary to most of my experience (maybe I’m wearing problematic skirts), especially that of two days ago when I showed up at work for the first time in a skirt. All of my male co-workers noticed. And contrary to my question to my husband. Yes, all other things being equal (tightness, length), skirts are more “sensual” than pants.
But maybe I’m just a whore.
Leave a Comment