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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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