Open Letter: Dear Femme

[Arwen]

Originally Posted by blush

Totally get what you're saying...

I think I'm being a tad more specific and asking is it possible for our masculine counterparts to describe us adequately without referencing the role we hold in their life.

I have to say that since I am fortunate enough to know that fella you are partnered with...I think he could do it.

No. I know he can do it. He's a passionate thinker. It may take him a bit to get his thoughts in a order that is pleasing to him, but once he does...it will blow you out of the water.

Grin, but you already know that about him.

Originally Posted by hippieflowergirl

spoken language is so damn limiting, isn't it? i find myself flailing for ways to adequately express the damn chaos in my damn mind. dammit.

i just finished rereading one of my fave science fiction books (octavia butler) about a species (wholly peaceful, thank the stars) that could link in to the nervous system of others and understand every damn thing without having to say a damn word. i don't know if i'd love it or hate it but i damn sure wouldn't mind trying it for a day.

(any guesses about my word of the day?)

Chaos? hee. I have heard of octavia Butler but have not read her yet. I think I could describe another person without mentioning their roles in my life but I'm not sure.

I thought about doing this for my mama--and failed. Everything for me came back to the role she was in my life.

A harder task, I think, than I initially thought. I'm going to keep working on it for my own peace of mind.

Is it easier to describe someone not in our lives so intimately? Of course it is. I hope some of us are up to this task. An intriguing exercise to see how ... and who we are.

[Lynn]

Originally Posted by Arwen

I thought about doing this for my mama--and failed. Everything for me came back to the role she was in my life.

A harder task, I think, than I initially thought. I'm going to keep working on it for my own peace of mind.

Is it easier to describe someone not in our lives so intimately? Of course it is. I hope some of us are up to this task. An intriguing exercise to see how ... and who we are.

I remember one of the most depressing moments of my life--when, exhausted from waking up every two hours for months to nurse my daughter, I had the "realization" that my only purpose on earth was to feed this child. I had the thought that if I were to die, I would only be missed for that. It was a very lonely, degrading thought to me. I could not see a reason for being, as an individual, at that moment.

As difficult as it is to describe someone--who they are and not their "roles," I think it's just as hard to describe ourselves. At least, it is for me. I take on the mantle of these roles and identies, but soon forget the *I* that chose them. I become them. Who could blame anyone else, then, for trying to see me *as* them?

[Arwen]

Originally Posted by Lynn

As difficult as it is to describe someone--who they are and not their "roles," I think it's just as hard to describe ourselves. At least, it is for me. I take on the mantle of these roles and identies, but soon forget the *I* that chose them. I become them. Who could blame anyone else, then, for trying to see me *as* them?

I think maybe you've just hit on a very important point. Because we ourselves accept those roles, we don't push our own envelopes. We don't become all we can be (sorry for the motto, lol).

Maybe by remaining "just" partners or wives or girlfriends or however we style that relationship...maybe we keep ourselves down.

I am not saying we all do this, but I think there is a percentage that do. And it's probably easier, right? Tell them you are a _____ and let them relate to you on that level and that level only. Keeps intimacy controllable. Manageable. Not so scary.

Do we as femmes perpetuate the role of femme? The giggles and flirting and all the rest?

[Lynn]

Arwen,

I was thinking about your attempt to see your mother as someone beyond her roles and I wondered if she was able to see herself as someone beyond her roles.

I think we typically present ourselves in a certain way (wife, mother, etc) because that's how we think of ourselves. We, in this thread and on this site, might be unique to the degree that we are willing to self-examine. I work with women who are sick or dying, and I am stunned by the willingness of so many to reach this place with no sense of self.

[KayCee]

I think it's not the way we are seen by others, rather than the way we see ourselves and how we let them treat us, that matters.

[evolveme]

Originally Posted by kat6071

I think it's not the way we are seen by others, rather than the way we see ourselves and how we let them treat us, that matters.

This is precisely the way that I see it.

We lose our autonomy only to the degree that we allow it.

And as Arwen goes on to say, particularly for mothers (and lovers), we may have to disabuse our children and partners of the notion that we ever belonged to them. I do not believe, and have never believed, that my child belongs to me. She came through me. I am her guardian as long as she is with me and until she can suffice herself.

This is what *I* do: I suffice myself.

Sometimes this is read as selfishness. And it may be. But I believe it is more true that I am simply a solitary creature. My roles are of a temporal nature relative to who and what I am. Don't misread, my love is fierce. But it does not define me. My mind defines me before my heart does. Unless we are speaking to my compassion. This also defines me. But never in the sense that I am giving myself away for it.

That is less compassion than martyrdom. And I am no martyr.

[Arwen]

Originally Posted by evolveme

This is what *I* do: I suffice myself.

Sometimes this is read as selfishness. And it may be. But I believe it is more true that I am simply a solitary creature. My roles are of a temporal nature relative to who and what I am. Don't misread, my love is fierce. But it does not define me. My mind defines me before my heart does. Unless we are speaking to my compassion. This also defines me. But never in the sense that I am giving myself away for it.

That is less compassion than martyrdom. And I am no martyr.

Oh can you PLEASE needlepoint that on a pillow for me? That last line.

Selfishness and meanness are such GOOD qualities to have in moderation. By selfishness I mean be selfish about your time and space and needs. Put yourself first so others who watch you can learn to put themselves first.

BULB! That's what Mama was doing. She was showing me by doing. I didn't learn it so well but I can always revisit those lessons.

Meanness to some is honesty to others is anger to someone else. I'd rather have friends in my world who are upfront and honest and who will give me the respect of discussing things. I am MEAN about this concept of honesty. I have to be otherwise I turn into a woman I do not like.

And I must be selfish and like myself better than anyone else, yes?

This becomes more than a word -- femme. Femme is part of who I am, yes, but it is not nearly all of who I am.

In a strange seque, I am reminded of a pillow my aunt gave my mother. It said:

It it's not one thing--it's your mother.

I think now I understand just why Mama found that so hysterical.

And why she always hid that pillow when my grandmother came to visit.

[SassyLeo]

Originally Posted by evolveme

I do not believe, and have never believed, that my child belongs to me. She came through me. I am her guardian as long as she is with me and until she can suffice herself.

This is what *I* do: I suffice myself.

Sometimes this is read as selfishness. And it may be. But I believe it is more true that I am simply a solitary creature. My roles are of a temporal nature relative to who and what I am. Don't misread, my love is fierce. But it does not define me. My mind defines me before my heart does. Unless we are speaking to my compassion. This also defines me. But never in the sense that I am giving myself away for it.

That is less compassion than martyrdom. And I am no martyr.

The bolded words: Perfect.

My mother and I have long had this kind of dialogue. I love seeing it in print, the words she and I have exchanged for years. Thank you for having the same words.

[julieisafemme]

Originally Posted by evolveme

This is precisely the way that I see it.

We lose our autonomy only to the degree that we allow it.

And as Arwen goes on to say, particularly for mothers (and lovers), we may have to disabuse our children and partners of the notion that we ever belonged to them. I do not believe, and have never believed, that my child belongs to me. She came through me. I am her guardian as long as she is with me and until she can suffice herself.

This is what *I* do: I suffice myself.

Sometimes this is read as selfishness. And it may be. But I believe it is more true that I am simply a solitary creature. My roles are of a temporal nature relative to who and what I am. Don't misread, my love is fierce. But it does not define me. My mind defines me before my heart does. Unless we are speaking to my compassion. This also defines me. But never in the sense that I am giving myself away for it.

That is less compassion than martyrdom. And I am no martyr.

Oh my. This hits home. I am being told daily by my child's father and even members of my family how selfish I am for leaving my marriage and letting myself be me. I do not subscribe to the notion that being a good mother means that I give up me, my needs, my dreams.

I do believe I belong to my child and she belongs to me until she is old enough to take care of herself and love as a grown woman. I don't think that means that I have to lose my identity as a woman.

I have been shocked at the harshness of the criticism I have recieved from other mothers. There is a policing that goes on.

[Arwen]

Originally Posted by Lynn

Arwen,

I was thinking about your attempt to see your mother as someone beyond her roles and I wondered if she was able to see herself as someone beyond her roles.

I actually KNOW my mother saw herself as beyond her roles. She was an amazing woman. However, this ability also render her the gift of being selfish. That did not translate well for my sister or myself at times because we thought she belonged to us. She had to continually disabuse us of that notion.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Arwen

I think maybe you've just hit on a very important point. Because we ourselves accept those roles, we don't push our own envelopes. We don't become all we can be (sorry for the motto, lol).

Maybe by remaining "just" partners or wives or girlfriends or however we style that relationship...maybe we keep ourselves down.

I am not saying we all do this, but I think there is a percentage that do. And it's probably easier, right? Tell them you are a _____ and let them relate to you on that level and that level only. Keeps intimacy controllable. Manageable. Not so scary.

Do we as femmes perpetuate the role of femme? The giggles and flirting and all the rest?

and is the role of Femme with giggles and flirting a bad thing, or is it an escape from everyday hard work?

[apretty]

i'm not following the conversation. i mean, post 147 made sense and then i'm lost again for at least a page. help?

[Apocalipstic]

I was responding to the thread as a whole, are there specific things you don't understand or can't follow in my posts? Am I not making sense?

I thought we were sharing our truths as Femme and what it means to us?

Will you explain how I should have responded? I sometimes take things and am too literal. My deepest appologies for messing up the thread.

[apretty]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

I was responding to the thread as a whole, are there specific things you don't understand or can't follow in my posts? Am I not making sense?

I thought we were sharing our truths as Femme and what it means to us?

Will you explain how I should have responded? I sometimes take things and am too literal. My deepest appologies for messing up the thread.

sorry, i didn't mean for you to take my 'confusion' personally. i was in no way addressing you, rather acknowledging my own sense of not being able to follow the last couple of pages--the conversation 'shift'. i did read your truth-post and could relate to your definition of 'you'.

[Arwen]

Label me. Define me & you starve yourself of yourself. Nail me down in a box with cold words & the box will be your coffin. ---Rumi

Do you think Rumi was reading this thread before we wrote it?

[Lynn]

Originally Posted by Arwen

Label me. Define me & you starve yourself of yourself. Nail me down in a box with cold words & the box will be your coffin. ---Rumi

Do you think Rumi was reading this thread before we wrote it?

Shit. Yes. The little hairs on my arms are standing on end.

[Bit]

Dear Goddess, I'm now nine pages behind and the convo has moved far, far past the place where I left off... I am afraid that if I start responding to things back on page three, page four, it will be a derailment of sorts. This is going to take some thinking....

[blush]

[QUOTE=Arwen;14200]I have to say that since I am fortunate enough to know that fella you are partnered with...I think he could do it.

No. I know he can do it. He's a passionate thinker. It may take him a bit to get his thoughts in a order that is pleasing to him, but once he does...it will blow you out of the water.

Grin, but you already know that about him.

Word. And one of the advantages of being friends before lovers is that you have known each other outside of that relationship role. But yeah, I totally agree. Obviously.