| Transcript |
COMMENTARIES
by Nikki van hiqluowER
Bill Narum
On Turning 40
This 40th birthday has been in the back
of my mind now for some time—sort of
lingering there generating mild feelings of
stress, and I have been trying to put my
finger on the reasons.
Ellen Goodman wrote a column several
months ago on turning 40. She expressed
many of my sentiments in trying to sort
out her feelings at the passage of the 30's.
As she pointed out, things are a great deal
better than they used to be:
"Not long ago a woman turning 40
would never consider buying a dress
out of the junior department, even
if it was perfect, for fear of trying
to look 'young.' Forty meant retreat;
concealment. It meant buying bathing suits with little skirts to cover
middle-age droop, instead of taking
up tennis or racquet ball. It meant
opting for a 'safe' marriage or a 'safe'
job, instead of taking a chance on
finding something happier or better."
I agree with you, Ellen. If anything, we
seem to have the opposite reaction to
turning 40 now. We are buying clothes
specifically because they make us look
younger, or taking up those sports or those
risks that we somehow passed up when
we were younger, maybe because we
thought that there would always be plenty
of time to do it later.
It is not chronological age, alone, that
reminds us of our tenure here on earth.
There are physical changes as well—the
lines, or wrinkles, that give a face character or depth of expression. They don't
mean the same things they used to, such
as switching to the bathing suits with the
skirts, but they mean something and that
is what I have been trying to figure out.
It's not that I really mind the way those
lines look on my face, it's what they
mean in terms of my individual freedom
and mobility that matters.
What is it that makes me anxious when
I look closely into the mirror? Part of it I
know is related to 30 years of conditioning that I have had only about 10 years to
counteract. Thinking about 40 in terms
of my socialization causes me to rephrase
the question. What did youth mean to me
as a woman? Youthfulness was related to
attractiveness—one-dimensional kind of
attractiveness. Youthfulness was a requisite for beauty, physical beauty.
This fact takes me back another step.
What was the value of beauty or physical
attractiveness for my life? It provided one
of the most achievable routes to upward
mobility—a man. Physical attractiveness
was also very important in getting a job,
at least the kind of jobs that were open to
women.
I understand my past reasons for concern with youth, but almost nothing that
I want today will be achieved through either youth or beauty. So why the lingering
concern over turning 40? Is it merely a
hangover from past experience? After doing my best to weed out all the mental
pollution from the past, I have to conclude
that there is indeed a legitimate reason for
a certain amount of stress at turning 40.
It is, statistically speaking anyway, the
middle point in life. The significance of
this is that there will not be another 40
years in front of me. Most of us will never
again have as much time in front of us as
we have had in the past. For me this
means that there is not as much time to
waste and I find myself attaching a new
seriousness to whatever I do. On the whole,
life has become more meaningful- to me
now than it was, say, 20 years ago.
Ellen Goodman called this feeling the
"Last Chance Syndrome." However, I am
finding it rather exhilarating, rather than
dismal. I know that the advent of feminism
has had a great deal to do with my reaction to turning 40.
The bathing suits are now irrelevant
and the facial lines are now only a reminder that I had better keep moving if I care
about what I am doing with my life—and
I do.
A Medal for Masculinity
"President Carter calls John Wayne genuine article," a Houston Post headline read
on March 13, 1979. "Genuine article?" If
John Wayne is a "genuine article" to President Carter, it's a poor outlook for our
country. Our highest elected leader has
lost the ability to distinguish between the
real and the imaginary. I don't mean to
pick on Jimmy Carter over this John
Wayne matter, it's just that his ridiculous
comments are always so much more visible
than those of others. In this particular case,
it was probably more a matter of Carter
jumping on the bandwagon and following
the crowd than leading.
As a matter of fact, not even John
Wayne's name was for real. It was a stage
name. His real name was Marion Michael
Morrison. The characters he played on
screen were no more genuine: super-he-
men Marines, pilots, cowboys, sea captains, prize fighters or cavalrymen.
His personal or "real" life, from what
we know of it, appeared to be rather chaotic and as much out of his control as his
screen lives were under his control. He had
three failed marriages. The second one
ended in a bitter divorce in which his wife
accused him of being a drunk and a philanderer. Although he made millions in his
screen career, poor investments kept him
from amassing the fortunes of some of his
contemporary actors such as Bob Hope.
Politically, he seemed unable to adapt
to the times. He remained a loyal supporter of Richard Nixon and was never able
to grasp the opposition to the Vietnam
War.
With so little going for him, why was
John Wayne presented the Congressional
Medal of Honor? Was it because he died
of cancer? Millions of people succumb to
that disease. Was it because he was a famous movie actor? Many great actors have
died unnoticed by our government officials.
I have been astounded by the lack of
dissent about the presentation to John
Wayne of our nation's highest award. The
only intelligent comment I have yet to
hear in the media came from Henry Fair-
lie, a Briton who for many years covered
America for the London Observer. Fairlie
stated in a commentary for the Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service,
"John Wayne has contributed nothing to the welfare or progress of
the American people beyond what
has been demanded of him in the
normal pursuit of his career and its
pecuniary rewards; he has set no exceptional endeavor or duty that
mothers might repeat to their infants to excite them to lives of civic virtue; and the sad fact that he is
dying of cancer is of no relevance in
determining whether he should be
singled out for one of the highest
awards of the state. It is impossible
to discover any tenable ground for
bestowing the honor."
It is my theory that the medal was bestowed as an effort to try to consummate
a world of make believe, to make it seem
as if it were genuine. John Wayne, "The
Duke," was the ultimate super-male. He
represented the ideal, but unachievable
masculinity that has come under severe
attack for being a phony article in the last
few years. The medal was a way to try to
preserve the ideal, to make it seem more
real. It was a statement by our government
and our president, of their male chauvinistic mentality. It had nothing to do with
Marion Michael Morrison.
He was, after all, just as ordinary as
the people who honored him. It was John
Wayne, the super-male movie hero, who
was being honored—one more triumph
for a masculinity that is no more real
than the image on the silver screen.
Do Feminists Represent Homemakers?
It is fairly typical in appointing women to
government posts, particularly those
which are primarily advisory or symbolic,
to use wives or daughters of famous
and/or rich men. Perhaps this is a reward
to women who have shown their loyalty
to their men by remaining in the background, doing little that would bring
them individual recognition. To most politicians, such appointments probably have
the benefit of safety, not to mention the
extra little bonus of a pat on the head to
the influential male, if he is still alive, or
his constituency, if he is not.
Such would seem to be the case with
the appointment of Lynda Bird Robb to
the position of chair of the President's
Advisory Committee for Women. Carter
made no bones about the fact that her
appointment was linked to her being the
daughter of Lyndon B. Johnson and the
wife of the Lt. Governor of Virginia. The
other reason given caught me by surprise,
although I don't suppose it should have.
I can't seem to overcome my naivete
about the abysmal ignorance of many
public officials on the women's movement.
At any rate, once again I was caught
off guard when I heard that the other
characteristic that got Lynda Bird her appointment was her role as mother and
wife. As opposed to what? Does this
imply that there are no other wives and
mothers on the committee or that there is
an over-representation of single women?
As I recall, it is the single women who are
underrepresented.
However, I feel sure that the appointment had little to do with quotas or fair
representation. I feel certain it had more
to do with a backward image of active
women. That is, if a woman does anything more than be a wife and mother, in
the minds of some people, including the
president, she loses her identity as a wife
and a mother, and also, apparently, her
ability to represent or relate to those
roles.
Even Robb seems to think there is a
distinction between feminists and women. She foresees no problems in following Abzug as chair, since "we represent
different constituencies."
I would find the whole issue of these
ridiculous distinctions amusing were it
not for the bad rap that feminists have
taken over their positions on women in
the homemaker role. Feminists have always been deeply concerned with upgrading and protecting women in the wife/
mother roles. After all, the vast majority
of women fit into one or both of those
roles, so turning our backs on them would
mean turning our backs on most women.
And, although it may come as a surprise
to many politicians, most feminists are
also wives and/or mothers.
The National Organization for Women
and other women's rights groups have
carried the entire weight of the struggle
for economic rights within marriage,
economic recognition for the home-
maker, and greater opportunities for
homemakers in transition. One of the
greatest impacts of the federal Equal
Rights Amendment would be through
changes in family law that would provide
greater protection for the homemaker/
mother.
So who really represents wives and
mothers? Those who have been out
struggling in their behalf or those whose
horizons stretch no further than their
individual families? By the way, President Carter, now that Lynda Bird Robb
has assumed the position of chair of the
President's Advisory Committee for Women, who is going to represent the wives
and mothers of our country?
Dr. Nikki Van Hightower is the executive
director\of the Houston Area Women's
Center.
HOUSTON BREAKTHROUGH
JULY/AUGUST 1979 |
