How bitchy are you?

Rage is a masculine concept. 

A real man expresses his rage openly. Some even use the excuse of testosterone to legitimise it. Others use passion. In some cultures rage-derived “passion” is still an excuse to commit crimes, namely, to kill women. “A man is not made of iron” is a Portuguese saying that justifies all kinds of male anger outbursts, namely towards women. An ancient and illiterate version of the self-not-so-helpful-idea that men are from Mars and women from Venus.

Histeria is, as the name shows, a female concept. It’s ontological, from a Freudian point of view, because it is then related to the ovaries. So, women should be naturally prone to uncontrolled emotional demonstrations, always inconvenient and always out of context. Men are often seen as the main victims. And children. 

“Bitching” and “nagging” are activities often attributed to women who dare to express their rage / disapproval / disgruntlement about whichever topic or person. “Embittered” and “emotional” are the labels that result from it. Men are never bitter. Men are never emotional. Men are temperamental. Men are outspoken. And all that is great.

Therefore and since the expression of rage, when it comes to male and female communication, has opposite connotations in our society, both sexes have developed their different ways to channel and communicate such a human (and non-human) emotion according to the demands of the community.

One of the most fascinating aspects of social interaction among primates is that individuals tend to adapt to the role that was collective defined by the group. That role depends on factual and perceived characteristics of the individuals but the main reason for its creation is the maintenance of the order within the group as well as the status quo of each one of the individuals that composes it. The same mechanism applies to humans.

Culture creates self-fulfilling prophecies regarding the identity of each one of us based on our sex, gender, appearance, family background, education level and other social variables. Women are supposed to take up as little social space as possible. Their needs are not a priority. Their duties are. That’s the core idea of female socialisation. So, at home, at the workplace, in all kinds of social circumstances, in almost every culture without exception, in order to be accepted, women develop such an ultra-filtered form of communication regarding sensitive topics and negative emotions that, sometimes, it is almost impossible to understand what they really mean. Women can gossip and criticise others aggressively among themselves (like men do) but as soon as they have the chance to make public their negative opinion on something or someone, the tone becomes contrastingly soft and the message, a blurred and vague version of what they really think.

If it is commonly accepted that female rage is eminently negative, obviously, women will develop other more socially acceptable ways of expressing that same rage, among themselves and towards men. It’s either that or social punishment, often manifested under the shape of disdain, criticism and other forms of social control, more or less explicit. And since women were taught that their value depend on others’ validation, they do not want to let anyone down. Moreover, in case women need anti-role models to inspire them to be soft and communicationally tamed, the eternally feminine Harpy and Witch will do the trick.

Carl Cauer
Hexe

GREEK & ROMAN MYTHOLOGY
a rapacious monster described as having a woman’s head and body and a bird’s wings and claws or depicted as a bird of prey with a woman’s face.
2.
a grasping, unpleasant woman.

Anyway, i am not making the public praise of aggression, meanness and lack of self-control over one’s emotions, no matter how justified they may be. All i am saying is that the socially established limits to female communication are nothing obstacles to clarity, assertion and self-awareness. The result of that is a much more limited social participation.

If women do not recognise themselves the right to, publicly or privately, speak up their own feelings, needs and opinions under the threat of seeming overly “demanding”, “bitchy” or even “nasty” – yes, Trump was not the first one to use this expression when talking about an outspoken woman-, they will never have the chance to explore other sides of themselves, find their own voice and get what is rightfully theirs.

In order to do that, women should quit:

  • Asking themselves if they were too blunt/ harsh/ aggressive while expressing an opinion during a meeting
  • All those mental reviews of conversations that took place during the day with friends and family
  • The self-castrating internal dialogues which always end up in zero ideas and zero communication to the exterior
  • Imagining castrastrophic reactions of others to their simple act of stating an opinion
  • Giving more importance to the manner in which they communicate and focus on the message
  • Looking at themselves from the exterior instead listening to their own thoughts
  • Last but not the least, asking internally if all those people who made bad judgements about them and their way of communicating were right, after all

It is that kind of agency that needs to be owned. However, lest we never forget that conquering such agency, will always be, for women, a work in progress because it completely goes against what women were raised to be and expected to become and, at the end, it will all play against them.

So, when it comes to the emancipation in the way women express themselves, they should expect nothing less than being their own biggest obstacle.

Not a mother. Just a woman.

Today, I came across a scientific study from 2017 that my Facebook feed decided to revive for some reason. That study departed from the analysis of the reactions of individuals from all over the US to voluntarily child-free people. According to it, most people not only find atypical that strangers choose not to reproduce but also feel morally outraged by their individual choice.

Based on that, it was observed that people hold the belief that voluntarily childless people are less fulfilled and happy than others who aren’t. Therefore, a bias is created and that same bias inspires differentiated ways of addressing those individuals, which may include discrimination and varied forms of mistreatment in different social spheres like the healthcare and the workplace ones. Even if this study doesn’t mention the variations on the level of disgust and outrage that most people feel towards a child-free man and a child-free woman, it is obvious that a child-free woman is the one that inspires the most temperamental and morally fuelled reactions.

As a woman who always had very clear her choice of not wanting children, I have seen this moral outrage in all its forms and demonstrations. From men, from other women, from doctors, from colleagues, from friends, from family, from partners, from bosses, from HR managers, from low educated people, from highly educated people and from people of all different nationalities and cultures. In all of them, I always saw that expression of puzzlement, more or less disguised by social politeness, that follows my answer to the question: “And you, why don’t you have children?”. People could deal with “because I can’t have them” or with “because I didn’t find the right person” and even with “because when I wanted it was too late” but never, I repeat, never with the straight answer “because I don’t want to”.

I didn’t want it at 20. I didn’t want it at 30 and I don’t want it at 41.

Due to the fact that most people cannot compute such an answer coming from a woman, a justification has to be found. Therefore, the quest for virtually hidden, dark and Freudian causes for such an outlandish behaviour begins. Some of them even ask, more or less directly, in an attempt to find if those causes lay, eventually, on a concealed dislike for children, or on the absence of father-like partners, or even on some dysfunctional family environment during childhood or maybe on a masked infertility. It is simply too hard to believe that a woman of sound mind, with appareantly all the necessary variables at hand, simply has priorities other than reproducing.

When I was younger such intrusions used to make me very upset. I used to get upset when my gynaecologist asked me, every year, starting at 18, when I wanted to have children (he only stopped asking when I was 35 maybe after concluding that, m a y b e, I was right when I answered, every time, that I really didn’t want them). I used to get upset when women in my family accused me of being loveless and selfish for refusing motherhood. I used to get upset when friends said that it was such a waste a potentially great mother like myself not wanting actually to be a mother. I used to get upset at people asking when my turn would be after my older sister got pregnant. I used to get upset at people’s interrogatories about when I would give my baby nephew a cousin for him to play with. I used to get upset at the shocked disbelief with which some partners faced my clarification that no children with me should be expected.  I used to get utterly annoyed and even enraged at such interferences, pressure and all those unrequested sermons about the wonders of motherhood and the absolute personal fulfilment  and the divine, undying love it involves. It was not only their moral outrage which annoyed me but also the obsessive insistence in pushing me into being someone and doing something that fell completely out of my plans. Especially, regarding something which i deemed to be an absolutely personal and intimate choice which was the use i decided to give to my reproductive system.

People didn’t seem to feel outraged when i decided to become an anthropologist instead of a journalist, nor when i decided to quit my Master and follow a path different from the academia. People werent’t shocked when i decided to settle in Brussels instead of Lisbon, in Guadalajara instead of Cancún or even in Germany instead of Switzerland. People weren’t offended when i decided not to follow any potential carreer in the areas of applied mathematics, space science, beauty industry or healthcare. I could have done all that but i have chosen not to. I simply did it and no one acted offended.

The problem is that motherhood is not seen as a choice for women. Actually, it is everything but personal.

Motherhood, as a cultural universal, is considered a defining aspect of femininity. More than a biological fate, it is seen as a social obligation thus, a woman who decides not to fulfil that social prescription can only be a freak, an outcast. In the case of a woman whose life circumstances are not those of an outcast nor looks remotely like one, this choice can be particularly hard to accept and definitely bewildering for most people. Interestingly, we are not speaking about more traditional societies. We are speaking about the free, western and progressive world. Actually, when it comes to this topic, the same level of moral outrage towards childless women can be seen coming from a young, tech-savy, urban scandinavian hipster or from an analphabet indigenous old woman from Chiapas. Neither of them can help that reaction therefore, i dare to extrapolate from the sample of that study and guess that the whole world is united in that way of conceiving the purpose of human existence: procreating. So, a women deciding not to have descendants is equivalent to breaking a tacit agreement accepted at birth.

It is the lack of compliance with such an essential matter that causes the uproar. Society can tolerate some levels of deviant behaviours as long as its pertuation isn’t at stake. It can be condescendent, even indulging when it comes to certain more exccentric behaviours as long as one does not refuse, plainly, to fullfil its most basic expectations. And reproduction is definitely one of them. It is considered upmost subversive not to procreate.

Now, after having seen hundreds of times that same expression of outrage on people’s faces and having heard all their questions and all kinds of monologues,  I no longer get upset. Not because i became blasée or developped some kind of emotional callus but simply because now i understand that motherhood is anything but a personal decision. Instead, it is a societal demand and a communitarian obligation. Women’s womb is anything but a private part. It is a public space about which everyone feels free to opinionate. So, i no longer feel outraged at the outraged people. I understand now how it all works and, because i have decided not to adopt for myself a destiny traced by others and because i insist that my womb is mine and mine alone, I am happy enough with following all the other plans I have for myself.

Furthermore, if I needed backup, I have decades of scientific studies that prove a negative correlation between the levels of happiness and parenthood. But I don’t even need them. Neither them nor any other kind of justification.

The victor and the prize

The kissing sailor – 1945

George Mendonsa has died.

George Mendonsa was the sailor who was immortalised by the photo of Alfred Eisenstaedt, in which he kisses a random woman that he grabbed and kissed in Times Square, after the surrender of Japan.

Quoting The Guardian : ,,The woman was Greta Friedman, a dental assistant wearing a nurse’s uniform. ‘ “He was very strong, he was just holding me tight,” she said. “It wasn’t my choice to be kissed. The guy just came over and kissed or grabbed.’- she told an interviewer with the Veterans History Project in 2005.”

On the other hand, Mendonsa, the sailor, told CBS news in 2012: “It was the moment. You come back from the Pacific and finally, the war ends. The excitement of the war being over, plus I had a few drinks. So when I saw the nurse, I grabbed her and I kissed her.”

So, they were perfect strangers.

She was minding her own business, walking down the street in her nurse uniform and a man felt free enough to grab her and kiss her. No questions asked, no introductory conversation, no seducing moves, no reciprocity, no consent. Just plainly using the alcohol and the celebratory mood as excuses to cross over all the boundaries that strangers’ bodies keep between themselves in public places. Just simple appropriation of someone else’s body. This male entitlement and this female objectification are so normalised in our culture that this photo is and was, for decades on end, a symbol of ecstatic celebration of the victory and safe return from war of the good guys. No one questioned it. After all, she didn’t struggle, she didn’t oppose therefore, not only did she like it but also felt flattered by the attention of the triumphant sailor. 

The Rape of Proserpina – Gian Lorenzo Bernini, 1621

The kipnapping of the Sabine women – Giambologna, 1583

In our collective imaginary,  rape and male violence can almost be seen as poetic forms of passion with which women are honoured. Art fuels these depictions of sexual assault and the numerous representations of the abduction and rape of the Sabine women by Roman men, or the abduction and rape of Proserpina by Pluto are perfect examples of that and very far from being the only ones. In all of them, the bodies of the assailants and the victims intertwine in a passionate dance of  ambiguous female gestures and savage male motions. To the eyes of the observer that witnesses these assaults, it all almost appears to be a fiery foreplay in which both parts play a role and from which both derive pleasure. Men in the role of victors taking their well-deserved trophies and women, as the trophies, with misleading body languages, somewhere between arousal and terror.

The photo taken of Mendonsa and Friedman is another example of that. Its name, “The kissing sailor”, defines who’s the main character. And because a photograph wasn’t enough to glorify his prowess, it is also possible to see in different locations in the USA, a collection of statues depicting the act. It has been properly named “Unconditional Surrender”.

Unconditional Surrender – Seward Johnson, 2015

Apart from some feminist uproar in the wake of the #metoo movement, most people don’t want to question the legitimacy of such kind of male attitude towards women. Maybe it would be too hard for some women to realise that that kiss stolen on the dance floor wasn’t consensual, that the touch on the train wasn’t unintentional, that the shoulder massage from that male co-worker wasn’t given out of kindness.

Maybe it would be too hard for some men to realise that they are not as nice and harmless as they think they are, that they have,  far too often, justified appropriation with alcohol, and mistaken self-confidence with self-entitlement and with being absolutely and utterly inappropriate towards a woman, stranger or not.

Better to go on using cosy euphemisms and legitimating disrespect through tradition. Better to go on considering that equality between both sexes is some sort of radical absurdity that kills all the beauty and magic between humans. And sometimes, all that is art and we all know how life can imitate it.