Brilliantly expressed. Reading about girlhood and womanhood being redefined in ways that make no sense to girls and women, I had a vague sense that this reminded me of something. Then I remembered. Reading classic male authors (Dickens, Melville, Shakespeare and others) in my late teens I'd be swept up in the wonderful wordsmithing an…
Brilliantly expressed. Reading about girlhood and womanhood being redefined in ways that make no sense to girls and women, I had a vague sense that this reminded me of something. Then I remembered. Reading classic male authors (Dickens, Melville, Shakespeare and others) in my late teens I'd be swept up in the wonderful wordsmithing and storytelling. Until I hit an unpleasant wall--I was reading along completely immersed, looking at life through the eyes of a male character who would describe a female character in two dimensional terms that I, an actual female, could not relate to. It was disorienting and disturbing, because I was in a relationship of trust with the writer. "If THAT is a woman, then who am I?" I'd wonder. Even--maybe especially--when the woman was deified as a goddess it was disturbing and knocked me right out of the story. As a human being with human problems and aspirations, I related to Pip. As a woman, I did not relate to Estella. I did not have this experience when reading female authors. I am glad I had access to those great writers--but I took a break from male writers for a few years. No, of course it's not all men who do this to women in response to a comment. But it seems to me that the sissy porn definition of women is just a new and ugly twist on a very old theme. At least I still think Dickens is a great writer.
Brilliantly expressed. Reading about girlhood and womanhood being redefined in ways that make no sense to girls and women, I had a vague sense that this reminded me of something. Then I remembered. Reading classic male authors (Dickens, Melville, Shakespeare and others) in my late teens I'd be swept up in the wonderful wordsmithing and storytelling. Until I hit an unpleasant wall--I was reading along completely immersed, looking at life through the eyes of a male character who would describe a female character in two dimensional terms that I, an actual female, could not relate to. It was disorienting and disturbing, because I was in a relationship of trust with the writer. "If THAT is a woman, then who am I?" I'd wonder. Even--maybe especially--when the woman was deified as a goddess it was disturbing and knocked me right out of the story. As a human being with human problems and aspirations, I related to Pip. As a woman, I did not relate to Estella. I did not have this experience when reading female authors. I am glad I had access to those great writers--but I took a break from male writers for a few years. No, of course it's not all men who do this to women in response to a comment. But it seems to me that the sissy porn definition of women is just a new and ugly twist on a very old theme. At least I still think Dickens is a great writer.