"Most men, if they spoke with any sincerity, would agree that the most terrible quality in women, whether in friendship, courtship or marriage, is not so much being emotional as being unemotional. There is an awful armor of ice which may be the legitimate protection of a more delicate organism; but whatever be the psychological explanation there can surely be no question of the fact. The instinctive cry of the female in anger is 'noli me tangere' [don't touch me]."
Chesterton claims that some call this "coldness of Chloe" by the name of dignity and some modesty, but then, somewhat oddly to my thinking, he says this: "Since we are talking here chiefly in types and symbols, perhaps as good an embodiment as any of the idea may be found in the mere fact of a woman wearing a skirt. It is highly typical of the rabid plagiarism which now passes for emancipation, that it is common for the 'advanced woman' to claim the right to wear trousers;...whether female liberty is much advanced by the act of wearing a skirt on each leg I do not know...BUT it is quite certain that the skirt means female dignity, not female submission; it can be proved by the simplest of all tests. When men wish to be safely impressive, as judges, priests or kings, they do wear skirts - the long, trailing robes of female dignity. The whole world is under petticoat government; for even men wear petticoats when they wish to govern."
The "wearing a skirt on each leg" cracks me up no matter how many times I read it! And he does have a point about the garb of governing, though I would suggest that other symbolic meanings might be more foundational to the wearing of "petticoats" by judges, pastors, etc.
Best of all, he doesn't espouse the idea that men are rational, women are emotional...although he implies that we are at our terrifying worst when we are unemotional. As a "modern" pants-wearing Betty, I'm not sure what I think about his connecting womanly dignity with skirt-wearing, but I am sure that it will occupy my thoughts until I convince myself that he's wrong...:-)
7 comments:
Okay, I just finished this chapter. How is the argument doing in your head? Skirts=dignity v pants wearing Betty.
Interesting insights from that man about women or should I say woman?
I tend to think that pants-wearing is like a lot of other "fashion-trends"...when it first begins, it MEANS something because of the culture from which the practice sprang (like men wearing earrings - or women wearing them, for that matter).
So, I don't think that in our day that wearing pants necessarily signifies woman's independence from man or her desire to promote a feministic agenda. And besides, who would want to bowl in a dress? For many of our activities today, pants provide greater modesty than a dress would.
Having said that, I personally feel differently when I wear a feminine dress than when I wear slacks or even a tailored-suit with a skirt. It's one of the reasons I am delighted with the latest fashions - there are an abundance of clothes with feminine lines....dresses, jackets, skirts, etc.
So that is how the argument has played out in my head.
I agree with the idea that the inital fashion trend has the most meaning. Nose piercing are supposedly no big deal now, right?
I also agree that pants provide greater modesty in some activities.
I also agree that I feel differently in feminine apparel AND I also feel like I am treated differently. So I will keep wearing skirts on most occaisions, but definitely not bowling!
See....this is why we get along...I express my opinion and you give wholehearted consent. That's exactly how it should be! :-)
:-)
I thought after I commented that you are one of the people who treated me differently because I always wore skirts. I am glad you don't any more. It's good to get along.
O-K...let's be clear about this! It wasn't JUST because you wore skirts!
It was because....like....6 of you families showed up at once in your long skirts, long hair, no make-up, totin' a gazillion homeschooled kids each! It was all of that put together that freaked me out! I thought I was stepping back into my legalistic past.
SO I SLIGHTLY MIS-JUDGED YOU ALL!! I'm glad I know better now!
Ok.It's clear! :-)'nuf said!
Post a Comment