living with the better chromosome...just kidding

Agatha

i always get a bit annoyed every time i read that women represent society, are the "evolving signifiers of bourgeois identity" (25). and this is something i've heard again and again, not only in Victorian texts, but in my global women's writing course, where we've so far studied the veil (women cannot take off the veil or society will collapse, but men can change the way they dress without catastrophic results), besides many other contexts.

WHY do women always, always "uphold" civilization, but men are never held responsible? is it because we like the beds to be made in the morning? is it because we buy healthy food for the pantry, instead of just meat? just how far back did this history begin?

now i don't want to be judgmental here, but it has come to my attention that the Y chromosome has essentially not evolved since humans first arrived as a species, while the X chromosome has evolved continuously over the centuries. observe the difference:

anyway. very interesting.

the chapter about "calling" rituals and their role in maintaining social connections was really interesting to me. as a girl i loved reading all of those Victorian novels of which "the call" featured so prominently–Little Women, The Secret Garden and A Little Princess, etc., but "the call" always slightly mystified me. they were always having to call on someone or other, and almost invariably no one was looking forward to this call, either the callers or those being called upon, and yet the ritual had to continue, like an awkward family holiday gathering. now it makes sense to understand how important it was to distinguish your own identity by clearly delineating that your formal "acquaintance" was different from those with whom you may happen to interact with from day to day. so you don't have to claim the grocer is your friend–thank God!–even though you are forced to talk to him. otherwise he might feel authorized to present his son to your daughter as a marriage prospect. horror!

i did also like Langland's emphasis on the agency of women at both taking control of these codes of domesticity and womanhood and either turning them to their own use, or else outright reinforcing them. i agree with Luke that when we look back on people actions with the lens of an "ism"–feminism, colonialism, marxism, etc.–we must not limit our understanding by trying to fit human behaviors into entirely political molds. can the actions of these women be political? of course. but behavior is complicated and tied to a manifold of motivations.

i am a graduate student, but i also know that english is the more "traditional" field anyway for young women, so i get the sense when i talk to some people that they don't really see me as breaking the glass ceiling, while my female friends in engineering are either patted on the back, or looked at with disdain (depending on the audience in question) for clearly making a bold statement in their choice of career. never mind that both of us are (at least in our own minds) following a personal passion and are simply not thinking of the larger political, feminist whatever implications of our actions. we're just trying to live.