I was born a feminist and without knowing the word until 1963 or so when my Mom brought home "The Feminine Mystique". I was a "girl" and I just did anything I darned please whether it was so-called "for boys" or "girls". I played with both dolls and cap guns. I learned to read from Superman comics, Little Lulu, Nancy Drew and The Hardy Boys and later, Mad Magazine.
I wore my gorgeous light blue organza party dress and also my cargo shorts with the western shirts with snaps. I never let anyone tell me I couldn't do or be whatever I wanted to do or be in life.
So at 8 my Dad put up a basketball hoop and I loved it. Not one of my girlfriends used it, but that was their problem. At 11 I ran for president of my elementary school. I lost, but that didn't matter. No other girls ran. At 11 I also entered the Scripps-Howard-sponsored spelling bee at my school and won against a fellow student, a "boy" and future McArthur Genius award winner. By 15 I was the only girl taking drafting so I could be an architect and I was already an artist. But by 22 I knew I wanted to become a lawyer and just up and did it even though women were only 3% of the profession.
At 22 I also was formally "a feminist" and belonged to NOW, the National Organization for Women. I was also "angry" and so I was an "angry feminist": it was the early 70's and women making only 59 cents to men's dollars was just one of the things making me angry. At 24 I was the head of the Women's Group in law school.
My parents half-heartedly objected because the house was run down, but I lived in a boarding house run by the Methodist Church at college and there were six girls and 25 guys and we all had a fabulous time rooting for Bobby Fisher to win his chess matches. And then I was an "angry feminist" again when the church kicked us out because we were girls and the male residents had brought us in without permission and despite it violating a trust under which the house was run. We sued for sex discrimination and lost and that still rankles because the church was happy to waive other portions of the trust requirements.
At 25 I fell in love with a guy who was just right for me. Because we each led complicated lives and because I was working my A off as a lawyer and he was running his business, we didn't marry until I was 35 and he was 43. He was an "Angry Feminist" too and we marched together for the ERA and for abortion rights and supported whatever the other wanted or wanted to do with minor exceptions: I always hated the house he wanted, but so be it. He was the guy that brought me changes of clothes at the office at 1 am if I was preparing for trial: that counted for more.
We had twin girls together and we together raised them to be "angry feminists", too.
We were together until he died 43 years later and everyday together was a blessing even if we had an occasional fight or were irked by certain of each others habits. (He just would never pick up the socks he dropped on the floor next to the bed each night and he'd never think to change the sheets. But so what: I did both and he washed the laundry. But he hated how I left dishes in the sink and he washed those, too, and was a great cook. But I was the one reading Harry Potter to the kids every night.)
So what the H does being an "Angry Feminist" have to do with with whether one marries? What matters is that when you've met someone that's a potted plant and not a flashy bunch of flowers and you make a mature choice. What matters is if you can imagine yourselves getting wrinkled together. What matters is whether you can be yourself with someone and if you have private jokes and dance spontaneously in the kitchen. What matters is if a "phony" or bad facelift or a guy in a bad toupee goes by and you both look at each other and instantly agree.
And if you want to, you can even marry and not do everything together. Once a month --and sometimes more-- he went fishing with a club for 20 or more years and women did not fish. The families all had parties and picnics all year round and the club had tournaments that raised $ for "Women in Distress" and "The March of Dimes". I travelled for legal conventions and committee work; sometimes he & the kids went and sometimes not. And when he went to conventions and I went too, I had the better time going to comic book stores for my "underground comix" and to art museums he hated.
Whether you're talking about marrying a male or female and no matter what you are, if you can't imagine a life without them, then just do it. Your relationship should be a synergy and you simply do not have to follow the claptrap about "covenant marriage" unless you want to or "the man is supposed to wear the pants in the family", and you don't even have to change your name if you are a woman unless you want to. (Maybe he'll even change his.) So just do what feels "right" to you because who says an "angry feminist" has to forego what's good and right about marriage? Marriage can be wonderful and it has many legal and emotional benefits.
On the other hand, if you don't want to marry, don't! The statistics are quite good about single women being happier than many married women. (But men live longer if they are married.) So just make your decision without regard to whether you are a feminist and an "angry" one or not.
For me, letter-writer, you seem to be in a place where reducing your story about yourself to an either/or proposition feels like a more comfortable way to face the unknown than taking Polly's queen's crown, placing it atop your head, and declaring, "come what may."
I can completely relate, but I think your story is just one of many stories we can tell ourselves about the future. Its primary benefit--at least in my own life--is its preservation of the status quo. When I flatten myself and others into types like "angry feminists" or "[shitty] men"--I do this all the time-- it's usually bc I want to stay where I am, as I am. I want myself and others and the world and also the future to be knowable, understandable. And this is way easier to do when I remind myself of limits.
Such a story seems like it offers a rest from the effort of remaining open to possibilities (while also acting as a tiny dare to the universe). Long-term, though, I have to constantly tell myself this story for it be and stay true. I also have to ignore all the ways that I kind of know that I'm actually not always ruled by limits (while also ignoring the ways others are not always ruled by their limits, either).
It requires a lot of effort to fit myself, others, the world, and the future into this kind of story--yet stories are so necessary! Especially when the future is so unclear! Maybe this is why Polly suggests rewriting your own by casting yourself as a limitless protagonist--a queen with wide dominion. Doing so won't keep you from experiencing disappointment, but it might give you more freedom and more confidence to rule over your own stories, and their interpretive power.
One thing sticks out to me in the light of your points about storytelling. LW says:
"It seems obvious to me that as a culture we stopped celebrating power and accomplishment at just the time when women began to accomplish things."
This really seems redolent of (unconsciously) inaccurate storytelling to me, and I'm not judging at all here, because I have had to break free from multiple inaccurate stories, and there may be some that still remain. Have we really stopped celebrating power and accomplishment?? (And, per the LW's implication, are these really the primary things that we should celebrate about people, anyway?) ... This all seems like a major effort to crowbar things into a narrative, as you describe. A lot of times these stories are ways of keeping us stuck where we (falsely) feel some sense of safety and control.
This caught my eye as well, and I wondered if LW meant that we stopped celebrating power and accomplishment for women, or for everyone. While I don't think there's been any major change in society's celebration of power and achievement in the last 30 years or so, I do remember feeling sort of blindsided when I bumped up against the glass ceiling for the first time in my late 20's/early 30's. Suddenly I was no longer the bright young thing and started experiencing/noticing a lot of workplace crap that I had been oblivious to before.
Those of us who struggle the hardest against being put into boxes are often the most determined to put others into boxes, and then to squeeze ourselves into boxes on their behalf.
Because boxes feel like control, and when we feel helpless we most want control.
This spoke to my heart and spirit so much. I'm 54 and ready to give up but I don't want to. I just want it in a way that satisfies me and works for him, whomever he may be. I believe in myself and life to give me more good before I go someday.
Same here. I'm 55 and was widowed last year. I haven't started dating yet and this is the self-affirmation I will be enveloping myself with if I eventually do start looking.
What a lovely lovely read. I will share this with all my straight women friends who struggle with men but also I am delighted to hear that being stubborn about our longings hopes dreams and desires is a good thing and I can hold out for it all as long as I acknowledge that other people are imperfect too. And that I may have many imperfections but wanting to “be better” and “being a wicked queen” are not some of them :)
This is what I needed to read today! Obsessed with the fantasy element and the imagery you use! This column gives me somewhere to go when I’m fed up with the world and everything feels awful, sexist, and wrong.
Unfortunately much of the world IS awful, sexist and wrong. Part of the reason, of course, is how poorly too many boys and girls are raised*, how many religious cults are evil and dangerous, how many men are sadists and even how many women are masochists, even how many now non-evil or non-dangerous religions have misguided tenets. (Catholic Church, anyone? Not trying to offend, but “just saying”.)
It’s also a matter of how many boys and girls, men and women are afraid to be “likable odd ducks” and afraid to stand out from the crowd or are afraid to be themselves, or to stand up for justice.
*And while I have no idea exactly how my parents and grandparents were raised --and even knowing that my own parents were terribly neglectful and uninvolved to an alarming degree for a middle to upper class family--EVERY single one of them on both sides of my family and in my husband’s family modeled “feminism” without knowing the word.
On all sides of the families for my husband and I most women worked outside of the home in some fashion going back to the 1900’s, some were professionals and entrepreneurs**, the men cooked, did laundry, and many even changed diapers. (DJ Trump brags he did not: not something to be proud of.)
(Do not ever discount “modeling” desirable feminist behaviors: while I criticized the nonsense coming out of Phyllis Schlafly’s mouth in the 70’s, SHE was one of the 3% of lawyers that women in the profession at that time.)
** In my family and my husband’s some women on both sides worked alongside their husbands in department stores or in retail clothing shops they owned.
On my side of the family some were /are insurance agents, bookkeepers, secretaries, real estate brokers and developers, radio engineers, a boudoir photographer, a leather clothing designer, a CAD/CAM designer, an upholster, several entrepreneurial artists, 2 licensed security officers, a paralegal, 2 lawyers, 2 notaries, several PR and marketing agents, a social media marketer. I’m a photographer, artist, lawyer and have been involved in commercial land investment and volunteering and Board work.
So it’s doubly alarming and even terrifying to me that so many GOP and MAGA want women to go back to being under men’s direct and explicit control. To try to ensure we women don’t get forced backward, women and men must VOTE BLUE from dog catcher on up.
There’s been few “wallflowers” or “scared weak women” in my families. *** “Feminism”--the angry kind or not --simply requires an attitude that “women can do just about anything” other than [so far] be the President of the United States, a Catholic priest, President of Russia or China, and so forth AND THEN the women just “going for it” with decent men getting out of the way or working along side and supporting women.
(*** Every now and then there was a “housewife”, but many of those were involved in volunteering and charitable work, political fundraising, as were many of the men, including my Dad big time and both my husband and I--and that counts too. And if there seem to be a large number of women listed as having careers, many of the grandparents and great grandparents on both sides had 8 and 9 kids.)
Replying to my own where I forgot to mention above about what else feminist women in my family have been involved in, two women--one of my sisters and I-- have been heavily involved in writing for social media for years* and my Mom wrote (and I badly) write poetry, she was at one point a credit manager and girl scout leader, and I a legal “writer” as are most lawyers when we write motions, briefs, etc. that are published in law books and online around the world, and in the late 70’s, I wrote a chapter in a land use planning book. As I said, “feminists” are generally not wallflowers.
* I will write about this again: but “Quora” clearly knows a lot more about how to get its writers “out there” than does Substack. I’ve been answering Q’s on Quora since 2017 and now have more than 800,000 people around the world reading what I’ve written as “P Carlin”. I think it’s a scandal that writers on Substack can’t get the same kind of exposure. Must be the algorithms or software design because I write no differently style-wise there than here.
Loved this. This reminds me of Deborah Levy’s high-horse: a woman using her big desires as her compass. Her friend is criticised for being on her high-horse and Levy thinks the critic would only be satisfied ‘if she steers her horse off the cliff. She is allowed to be exceptionally skilled at dying.’ We have to ride our high-horse. The only thing a high-horse shouldn’t do is trample another woman’s high-horse.
I agree to some of the points but don't with some.
I think what you said was a very narcissistic way of looking for life and seeking relationships.
The queen theory is something I completely disagree with. Men before made the same mistake of considering themselves as dominant kings in the relationships and we were or are -in a patriarchal society.
The queen approach and behaviour I think the same thing. It doesn't promote or suggest equality.
Everyone has the right to achieve their dreams. But regarding desires - I think desires should be in control of a person and not the other way around. There are 2 extremes in the society right now -either a person is a slave of God(religion) or desires. Bothe are equally bad and not healthy. If someone's desires are going against the other person's morality and fundamental beliefs or simply they are not comfortable with it, I believe they should be discussed and not act upon. The person with desires should make peace with it. I think the other person's feelings are more important than someone's desires or kinks. I think feelings are superior than kinks. Making someone act upon their own desire, was something men did for centuries. Are we here to make the same mistake and not learn anything from the past?
The reason I think this approach or the queen behaviour is problematic because it says that one is worthy of everything, without asking what they have or are doing towards it. It's not self love ,because even for self love one needs to do something. Does one become worthy of everything just by being a person by birth (here woman). It doesn't even bother to take what the other 'person brings to the table'. Everything is about me me me.
No one likes arrogant queens or kings. This is not a gender thing. No woman want an arrogant man ,so I don't think one can justify being arrogant in the relationship, for their desires.
This come with the fact that I fundamentally believe in equality and chasing alpha male or feminism or any other label is not healthy.
Obviously there are things that I agree and haven't mentioned it in the long comment.
I am open for a counter argument or perspective cause change is the only constant thing in life.
I'm describing an imaginative perspective shift that will get the letter writer into a space of owning her power, her brilliance, and her desires instead of feeling that these strengths are a liability. Doing no harm is a given, as is respecting yourself and others, and making space and opportunities for others to own their power. I do think people are born worthy, though, and our culture has a way of alienating us from our own worthiness, value, and natural intelligence. Everything I've written here applies to all genders.
The reason I use words like wicked, imperious, and arrogant is that our alienation from our bodies, our work, our imaginations, and our desires -- often via moral messages that tell us our power is suspicious or selfish -- necessitates a kind of overcorrection internally. It's like we're steering against a strong crosswind of shame and intimidation, so we need to alter our course in and aim for extreme confidence, conviction, flair, and swagger just to move in a straight line.
Nowhere in what I've written do I suggest or even imply that the world becomes all about me, me, me when a person makes a perspective shift that allows for more bold self-acceptance. In my experience, the opposite occurs: You free yourself from the limiting expectations of the culture and suddenly you are more ethical, more considerate, more generous, and more focused on the ideas, emotions, and needs of others.
Thank you for your comments! I appreciate the chance to clarify. In general, my metaphors and words are a means of breaking someone out of their existing prisons. If the letter writer were in a prison of narcissistic or neurotic, myopic thinking, I'd use different words to steer against those crosswinds.
I so like that you said what you wrote applies to all genders. I'm a guy and think the shift you write about is exactly what I need...even if I don't think of myself as a "queen" while making it.
Today I painted my nails (all 20, we’re going full glam) a darkly iridescent grey-purple, in honor of my wicked queen self, and in honor of all the wicked queens out there. I raise my jeweled chalice to you all 🏆
I'm struck with how Polly adroitly picked out a nugget of insight that I completely overlooked while reading AF's letter: "She recognizes her own avoidant reaction to a froggy prince’s need for emotional support, and she makes adjustments as a way of admitting that everyone needs what they need and there is no objective moral value to needs." I don't know if AF received that feedback from the therapy guidance she says she's received, but it's an astute observation, and if accurate, next steps would be to explore that, as Polly said: "She investigates her own aversions with curiosity and a spirit of compassion for herself."
Love this! "long nails the demonic purple of cold planets" especially stood out to me. I'm going to pick purple nail color in honor of this. I live with my own frog prince and this was a nice reminder of our mutual imperfections too. 💜
Absolutely holy-shit brilliant, once again. And the insight in your comment is beyond helpful too: "The reason I use words like wicked, imperious, and arrogant is that our alienation from our bodies, our work, our imaginations, and our desires -- often via moral messages that tell us our power is suspicious or selfish -- necessitates a kind of overcorrection internally. It's like we're steering against a strong crosswind of shame and intimidation, so we need to alter our course in and aim for extreme confidence, conviction, flair, and swagger just to move in a straight line." Inject it into my veins please.
My God. I've not felt this fully refreshed by a piece of writing for some time. None of the dreadful things happening in my life and relationships need dull or sour me because I'm royalty. Thank you.
I agree with you, as a woman who loves the opposite sex. We should embrace the differences. We're designed to compliment each other. It's not a feminine world or a masculine world, it's the natural world.
What point are you trying to make with this comment? I'm getting sarcastic vibes but I'm not sure. If you'd like to state your idea more clearly perhaps we could discuss its merits and flaws in a constructive way.
"The next frog I met was also a prince. He understood and embraced the principles of feminism and applied them to our life together without struggling to do so. He sometimes seemed more interested in my career than I was. He listened closely to my opinions and my emotions and could talk for hours about anything and everything, and he still does this 20 years later. He has consistently referred to me as the most interesting person he’s ever met, and he manifests that belief in everything he does."
thats get outta jail free stuff for at least a decade lol
What a ride! I forgot where I was at times. This is psychedelic.
I was born a feminist and without knowing the word until 1963 or so when my Mom brought home "The Feminine Mystique". I was a "girl" and I just did anything I darned please whether it was so-called "for boys" or "girls". I played with both dolls and cap guns. I learned to read from Superman comics, Little Lulu, Nancy Drew and The Hardy Boys and later, Mad Magazine.
I wore my gorgeous light blue organza party dress and also my cargo shorts with the western shirts with snaps. I never let anyone tell me I couldn't do or be whatever I wanted to do or be in life.
So at 8 my Dad put up a basketball hoop and I loved it. Not one of my girlfriends used it, but that was their problem. At 11 I ran for president of my elementary school. I lost, but that didn't matter. No other girls ran. At 11 I also entered the Scripps-Howard-sponsored spelling bee at my school and won against a fellow student, a "boy" and future McArthur Genius award winner. By 15 I was the only girl taking drafting so I could be an architect and I was already an artist. But by 22 I knew I wanted to become a lawyer and just up and did it even though women were only 3% of the profession.
At 22 I also was formally "a feminist" and belonged to NOW, the National Organization for Women. I was also "angry" and so I was an "angry feminist": it was the early 70's and women making only 59 cents to men's dollars was just one of the things making me angry. At 24 I was the head of the Women's Group in law school.
My parents half-heartedly objected because the house was run down, but I lived in a boarding house run by the Methodist Church at college and there were six girls and 25 guys and we all had a fabulous time rooting for Bobby Fisher to win his chess matches. And then I was an "angry feminist" again when the church kicked us out because we were girls and the male residents had brought us in without permission and despite it violating a trust under which the house was run. We sued for sex discrimination and lost and that still rankles because the church was happy to waive other portions of the trust requirements.
At 25 I fell in love with a guy who was just right for me. Because we each led complicated lives and because I was working my A off as a lawyer and he was running his business, we didn't marry until I was 35 and he was 43. He was an "Angry Feminist" too and we marched together for the ERA and for abortion rights and supported whatever the other wanted or wanted to do with minor exceptions: I always hated the house he wanted, but so be it. He was the guy that brought me changes of clothes at the office at 1 am if I was preparing for trial: that counted for more.
We had twin girls together and we together raised them to be "angry feminists", too.
We were together until he died 43 years later and everyday together was a blessing even if we had an occasional fight or were irked by certain of each others habits. (He just would never pick up the socks he dropped on the floor next to the bed each night and he'd never think to change the sheets. But so what: I did both and he washed the laundry. But he hated how I left dishes in the sink and he washed those, too, and was a great cook. But I was the one reading Harry Potter to the kids every night.)
So what the H does being an "Angry Feminist" have to do with with whether one marries? What matters is that when you've met someone that's a potted plant and not a flashy bunch of flowers and you make a mature choice. What matters is if you can imagine yourselves getting wrinkled together. What matters is whether you can be yourself with someone and if you have private jokes and dance spontaneously in the kitchen. What matters is if a "phony" or bad facelift or a guy in a bad toupee goes by and you both look at each other and instantly agree.
And if you want to, you can even marry and not do everything together. Once a month --and sometimes more-- he went fishing with a club for 20 or more years and women did not fish. The families all had parties and picnics all year round and the club had tournaments that raised $ for "Women in Distress" and "The March of Dimes". I travelled for legal conventions and committee work; sometimes he & the kids went and sometimes not. And when he went to conventions and I went too, I had the better time going to comic book stores for my "underground comix" and to art museums he hated.
Whether you're talking about marrying a male or female and no matter what you are, if you can't imagine a life without them, then just do it. Your relationship should be a synergy and you simply do not have to follow the claptrap about "covenant marriage" unless you want to or "the man is supposed to wear the pants in the family", and you don't even have to change your name if you are a woman unless you want to. (Maybe he'll even change his.) So just do what feels "right" to you because who says an "angry feminist" has to forego what's good and right about marriage? Marriage can be wonderful and it has many legal and emotional benefits.
On the other hand, if you don't want to marry, don't! The statistics are quite good about single women being happier than many married women. (But men live longer if they are married.) So just make your decision without regard to whether you are a feminist and an "angry" one or not.
Thank you for this beautiful post.
And thank you for yours’ too!. You enriched my day when I read yours. It’s wonderful when reading can really make you think. 😎
For me, letter-writer, you seem to be in a place where reducing your story about yourself to an either/or proposition feels like a more comfortable way to face the unknown than taking Polly's queen's crown, placing it atop your head, and declaring, "come what may."
I can completely relate, but I think your story is just one of many stories we can tell ourselves about the future. Its primary benefit--at least in my own life--is its preservation of the status quo. When I flatten myself and others into types like "angry feminists" or "[shitty] men"--I do this all the time-- it's usually bc I want to stay where I am, as I am. I want myself and others and the world and also the future to be knowable, understandable. And this is way easier to do when I remind myself of limits.
Such a story seems like it offers a rest from the effort of remaining open to possibilities (while also acting as a tiny dare to the universe). Long-term, though, I have to constantly tell myself this story for it be and stay true. I also have to ignore all the ways that I kind of know that I'm actually not always ruled by limits (while also ignoring the ways others are not always ruled by their limits, either).
It requires a lot of effort to fit myself, others, the world, and the future into this kind of story--yet stories are so necessary! Especially when the future is so unclear! Maybe this is why Polly suggests rewriting your own by casting yourself as a limitless protagonist--a queen with wide dominion. Doing so won't keep you from experiencing disappointment, but it might give you more freedom and more confidence to rule over your own stories, and their interpretive power.
One thing sticks out to me in the light of your points about storytelling. LW says:
"It seems obvious to me that as a culture we stopped celebrating power and accomplishment at just the time when women began to accomplish things."
This really seems redolent of (unconsciously) inaccurate storytelling to me, and I'm not judging at all here, because I have had to break free from multiple inaccurate stories, and there may be some that still remain. Have we really stopped celebrating power and accomplishment?? (And, per the LW's implication, are these really the primary things that we should celebrate about people, anyway?) ... This all seems like a major effort to crowbar things into a narrative, as you describe. A lot of times these stories are ways of keeping us stuck where we (falsely) feel some sense of safety and control.
Thanks for the food for thought in your post.
This caught my eye as well, and I wondered if LW meant that we stopped celebrating power and accomplishment for women, or for everyone. While I don't think there's been any major change in society's celebration of power and achievement in the last 30 years or so, I do remember feeling sort of blindsided when I bumped up against the glass ceiling for the first time in my late 20's/early 30's. Suddenly I was no longer the bright young thing and started experiencing/noticing a lot of workplace crap that I had been oblivious to before.
I broadly agree with this take: have noticed sometimes the people who feel most constrained by a system are most likely to resist changes to it
You said it so well!
It made me think...
Those of us who struggle the hardest against being put into boxes are often the most determined to put others into boxes, and then to squeeze ourselves into boxes on their behalf.
Because boxes feel like control, and when we feel helpless we most want control.
This spoke to my heart and spirit so much. I'm 54 and ready to give up but I don't want to. I just want it in a way that satisfies me and works for him, whomever he may be. I believe in myself and life to give me more good before I go someday.
Same here. I'm 55 and was widowed last year. I haven't started dating yet and this is the self-affirmation I will be enveloping myself with if I eventually do start looking.
Might as well try to believe in magic while remaining discerning.
What a lovely lovely read. I will share this with all my straight women friends who struggle with men but also I am delighted to hear that being stubborn about our longings hopes dreams and desires is a good thing and I can hold out for it all as long as I acknowledge that other people are imperfect too. And that I may have many imperfections but wanting to “be better” and “being a wicked queen” are not some of them :)
This is what I needed to read today! Obsessed with the fantasy element and the imagery you use! This column gives me somewhere to go when I’m fed up with the world and everything feels awful, sexist, and wrong.
Unfortunately much of the world IS awful, sexist and wrong. Part of the reason, of course, is how poorly too many boys and girls are raised*, how many religious cults are evil and dangerous, how many men are sadists and even how many women are masochists, even how many now non-evil or non-dangerous religions have misguided tenets. (Catholic Church, anyone? Not trying to offend, but “just saying”.)
It’s also a matter of how many boys and girls, men and women are afraid to be “likable odd ducks” and afraid to stand out from the crowd or are afraid to be themselves, or to stand up for justice.
*And while I have no idea exactly how my parents and grandparents were raised --and even knowing that my own parents were terribly neglectful and uninvolved to an alarming degree for a middle to upper class family--EVERY single one of them on both sides of my family and in my husband’s family modeled “feminism” without knowing the word.
On all sides of the families for my husband and I most women worked outside of the home in some fashion going back to the 1900’s, some were professionals and entrepreneurs**, the men cooked, did laundry, and many even changed diapers. (DJ Trump brags he did not: not something to be proud of.)
(Do not ever discount “modeling” desirable feminist behaviors: while I criticized the nonsense coming out of Phyllis Schlafly’s mouth in the 70’s, SHE was one of the 3% of lawyers that women in the profession at that time.)
** In my family and my husband’s some women on both sides worked alongside their husbands in department stores or in retail clothing shops they owned.
On my side of the family some were /are insurance agents, bookkeepers, secretaries, real estate brokers and developers, radio engineers, a boudoir photographer, a leather clothing designer, a CAD/CAM designer, an upholster, several entrepreneurial artists, 2 licensed security officers, a paralegal, 2 lawyers, 2 notaries, several PR and marketing agents, a social media marketer. I’m a photographer, artist, lawyer and have been involved in commercial land investment and volunteering and Board work.
So it’s doubly alarming and even terrifying to me that so many GOP and MAGA want women to go back to being under men’s direct and explicit control. To try to ensure we women don’t get forced backward, women and men must VOTE BLUE from dog catcher on up.
There’s been few “wallflowers” or “scared weak women” in my families. *** “Feminism”--the angry kind or not --simply requires an attitude that “women can do just about anything” other than [so far] be the President of the United States, a Catholic priest, President of Russia or China, and so forth AND THEN the women just “going for it” with decent men getting out of the way or working along side and supporting women.
(*** Every now and then there was a “housewife”, but many of those were involved in volunteering and charitable work, political fundraising, as were many of the men, including my Dad big time and both my husband and I--and that counts too. And if there seem to be a large number of women listed as having careers, many of the grandparents and great grandparents on both sides had 8 and 9 kids.)
love the phrase “likeable odd ducks”
Replying to my own where I forgot to mention above about what else feminist women in my family have been involved in, two women--one of my sisters and I-- have been heavily involved in writing for social media for years* and my Mom wrote (and I badly) write poetry, she was at one point a credit manager and girl scout leader, and I a legal “writer” as are most lawyers when we write motions, briefs, etc. that are published in law books and online around the world, and in the late 70’s, I wrote a chapter in a land use planning book. As I said, “feminists” are generally not wallflowers.
* I will write about this again: but “Quora” clearly knows a lot more about how to get its writers “out there” than does Substack. I’ve been answering Q’s on Quora since 2017 and now have more than 800,000 people around the world reading what I’ve written as “P Carlin”. I think it’s a scandal that writers on Substack can’t get the same kind of exposure. Must be the algorithms or software design because I write no differently style-wise there than here.
Loved this. This reminds me of Deborah Levy’s high-horse: a woman using her big desires as her compass. Her friend is criticised for being on her high-horse and Levy thinks the critic would only be satisfied ‘if she steers her horse off the cliff. She is allowed to be exceptionally skilled at dying.’ We have to ride our high-horse. The only thing a high-horse shouldn’t do is trample another woman’s high-horse.
great reminder about the “high-horse”!
Hello Heather,
I agree to some of the points but don't with some.
I think what you said was a very narcissistic way of looking for life and seeking relationships.
The queen theory is something I completely disagree with. Men before made the same mistake of considering themselves as dominant kings in the relationships and we were or are -in a patriarchal society.
The queen approach and behaviour I think the same thing. It doesn't promote or suggest equality.
Everyone has the right to achieve their dreams. But regarding desires - I think desires should be in control of a person and not the other way around. There are 2 extremes in the society right now -either a person is a slave of God(religion) or desires. Bothe are equally bad and not healthy. If someone's desires are going against the other person's morality and fundamental beliefs or simply they are not comfortable with it, I believe they should be discussed and not act upon. The person with desires should make peace with it. I think the other person's feelings are more important than someone's desires or kinks. I think feelings are superior than kinks. Making someone act upon their own desire, was something men did for centuries. Are we here to make the same mistake and not learn anything from the past?
The reason I think this approach or the queen behaviour is problematic because it says that one is worthy of everything, without asking what they have or are doing towards it. It's not self love ,because even for self love one needs to do something. Does one become worthy of everything just by being a person by birth (here woman). It doesn't even bother to take what the other 'person brings to the table'. Everything is about me me me.
No one likes arrogant queens or kings. This is not a gender thing. No woman want an arrogant man ,so I don't think one can justify being arrogant in the relationship, for their desires.
This come with the fact that I fundamentally believe in equality and chasing alpha male or feminism or any other label is not healthy.
Obviously there are things that I agree and haven't mentioned it in the long comment.
I am open for a counter argument or perspective cause change is the only constant thing in life.
Thak you,
Reader- not angry ,might sound one on the screen.
I'm describing an imaginative perspective shift that will get the letter writer into a space of owning her power, her brilliance, and her desires instead of feeling that these strengths are a liability. Doing no harm is a given, as is respecting yourself and others, and making space and opportunities for others to own their power. I do think people are born worthy, though, and our culture has a way of alienating us from our own worthiness, value, and natural intelligence. Everything I've written here applies to all genders.
The reason I use words like wicked, imperious, and arrogant is that our alienation from our bodies, our work, our imaginations, and our desires -- often via moral messages that tell us our power is suspicious or selfish -- necessitates a kind of overcorrection internally. It's like we're steering against a strong crosswind of shame and intimidation, so we need to alter our course in and aim for extreme confidence, conviction, flair, and swagger just to move in a straight line.
Nowhere in what I've written do I suggest or even imply that the world becomes all about me, me, me when a person makes a perspective shift that allows for more bold self-acceptance. In my experience, the opposite occurs: You free yourself from the limiting expectations of the culture and suddenly you are more ethical, more considerate, more generous, and more focused on the ideas, emotions, and needs of others.
Thank you for your comments! I appreciate the chance to clarify. In general, my metaphors and words are a means of breaking someone out of their existing prisons. If the letter writer were in a prison of narcissistic or neurotic, myopic thinking, I'd use different words to steer against those crosswinds.
Thanks for your clarification Heather. Really appreciate it.
It cleared the air (mostly). Thanks for your writings.
I so like that you said what you wrote applies to all genders. I'm a guy and think the shift you write about is exactly what I need...even if I don't think of myself as a "queen" while making it.
Today I painted my nails (all 20, we’re going full glam) a darkly iridescent grey-purple, in honor of my wicked queen self, and in honor of all the wicked queens out there. I raise my jeweled chalice to you all 🏆
I'm struck with how Polly adroitly picked out a nugget of insight that I completely overlooked while reading AF's letter: "She recognizes her own avoidant reaction to a froggy prince’s need for emotional support, and she makes adjustments as a way of admitting that everyone needs what they need and there is no objective moral value to needs." I don't know if AF received that feedback from the therapy guidance she says she's received, but it's an astute observation, and if accurate, next steps would be to explore that, as Polly said: "She investigates her own aversions with curiosity and a spirit of compassion for herself."
Nice work, Polly.
Love this! "long nails the demonic purple of cold planets" especially stood out to me. I'm going to pick purple nail color in honor of this. I live with my own frog prince and this was a nice reminder of our mutual imperfections too. 💜
Absolutely holy-shit brilliant, once again. And the insight in your comment is beyond helpful too: "The reason I use words like wicked, imperious, and arrogant is that our alienation from our bodies, our work, our imaginations, and our desires -- often via moral messages that tell us our power is suspicious or selfish -- necessitates a kind of overcorrection internally. It's like we're steering against a strong crosswind of shame and intimidation, so we need to alter our course in and aim for extreme confidence, conviction, flair, and swagger just to move in a straight line." Inject it into my veins please.
goddamn she's done it again! <3 <3 <3
My God. I've not felt this fully refreshed by a piece of writing for some time. None of the dreadful things happening in my life and relationships need dull or sour me because I'm royalty. Thank you.
Wicked Queens, Humble, Benevolent Kings; what a lovey-dovey feminine world we are to live in.
I agree with you, as a woman who loves the opposite sex. We should embrace the differences. We're designed to compliment each other. It's not a feminine world or a masculine world, it's the natural world.
Refusing to accept this simple truth is the cause of all kinds of stress and heartache, including the letter writer's
What point are you trying to make with this comment? I'm getting sarcastic vibes but I'm not sure. If you'd like to state your idea more clearly perhaps we could discuss its merits and flaws in a constructive way.
"The next frog I met was also a prince. He understood and embraced the principles of feminism and applied them to our life together without struggling to do so. He sometimes seemed more interested in my career than I was. He listened closely to my opinions and my emotions and could talk for hours about anything and everything, and he still does this 20 years later. He has consistently referred to me as the most interesting person he’s ever met, and he manifests that belief in everything he does."
thats get outta jail free stuff for at least a decade lol