Lynn, who maintains the LynnUnleashed weblog, posted a interesting commentary about my Men, pit bulls, and a woman columnist piece and pointed me to it. My wife says to say she agrees with you 100%, Lynn. Oh oh.
My hunch at the time I wrote that was that it probably wasn’t physical objects like makeup, shoes, purse, etc. that women use to partially define their womanhood. “What in life” leaves it open. Lynn wondered about make-up, “But does make-up ‘define womanhood’? The notion seems kind of silly… The need to define oneself seems to be a uniquely male characteristic which men extend to females as well.”
I still haven’t quite got a handle on this. But it seems that women place so much emphasis on their physical appearance because they’re constantly getting the message that that’s what men value, which in turn implies that they tend to define themselves by having a relationship to a man. To put it grossly for a woman: “If I’m not in a relationship, then I’m nobody.” (The male corollary might be, “If I’m not getting laid, then I’m a nobody.”) Or put another way: The more insecure a woman is, the more she’ll be inclined to use a man for her security. The more insecure a man is, the more he’ll be inclined to use dangerous things or activities to shore up his sense of power in relation to other men, as he hopes this will ultimately be attractive to women.
Also, women tend to pride themselves on being good shoppers, both for themselves and their family and friends. It’s woven into motherhood and their traditional role in the domestic empire. Is that any different than men and their tools and their traditional role in the domestic empire? It seems that shopping and using tools are both related to our roles as providers — “how we in part define ourselves.”
More to come on this as I keep noodling on it… and get feedback from y’all and my sweetie.