Today, I ran across an article that I hoped was an exposition on the many things that are more important that physical attractiveness when choosing a mate. And it was. Kind of.
I should have known I was going to be disappointed from the first two words in the title, "dream girl," but I pressed on and read the article, hoping upon hope that it wasn't going to be the heaping pile of the most insidious type of sexism that it was.
If you ignore the content of Dream Girl: The Difference Between A Pretty Face And A Beautiful Person, the subheadings of the article ring true: I absolutely agree that passion, kindness, and uniqueness - among many other traits - are more important than traditional physical attractiveness in a partner. Unfortunately, the author takes what could have been a wonderful concept for an article and turns it on its head with his unrealistic expectations and clear consideration of women as the "other."
You could almost sum the entire article up in the traditionally physically attractive, faceless "dream girl" in the photo that accompanies it. The "dream girl" is a nameless, faceless fantasy rooted in the ancient practice of putting women on a pedestal. The problem with putting women on pedestals is that the expectations of perfection that are created are just the wolf of oppression dressed up in sheep's clothing. Whether you expect more of women because they are somehow supposed to be better than men or you treat them disdainfully because you believe they are lesser, you are still treating women as "others" and denying them the full expression of themselves as flawed, real human beings.
This is not to say that women don't make the same mistakes when imagining their own faceless "dream guy." The paradigms of patriarchy have trained this idea of attempting to hold real people to the standards of fantasized perfection into both genders. Either way, the pedestals we create to put people on not only oppress the parts of society they represent but also set the imaginer up to be lonely, disappointed, and a bit bitter once they start encountering real people and making comparisons.
In the article, the author says he wants a passionate person. Passion is great! Passion is motivating and sensual, and exciting. Passion also has a dark side that Mr. Miller seems unaware of. Passion often goes hand in hand with untamable wildness, something Miller makes clear he does not want when he indicates, incorrectly, that passion results in perfect faithfulness. Now, faithfulness/loyalty is another good trait to look for in a mate but it has nothing to do with the level of passion a person has - in fact, some of the most loyal people I've ever known have been the least passionate. Passion also is correlated with all of the intense emotions…good, bad, and downright ugly.
Yet, Mr. Miller wants both a passionate person and a person with the kind of kindness that means she will "fight fairly…and hopefully not go to bed angry." Really? Have you ever seen a person fight about something they are passionate about? The more passion, the harder the fight. Kindness, as it is described in the article as a form of respect, is a wonderful thing. Just like with passion, though, he seems unaware that there is no correlation between kindness/respect and choosing to "be on the same side" in arguments. Granted, a kind person may pick their battles but, when a battle is chosen, their kindness does not guarantee how they will fight.
I also have to mention the attitude towards women that Mr. Miller reveals in his discussion on kindness. His bitterness towards women who are "manipulative" is clear and he seems to think that women who view relationships as a power struggle are only worth being around for sex (and, really, according to his primary point, not even then). Interestingly, the wave of feminism starting in the 70's that has led so many to try to push and break the glass ceiling in the years since taught a generation of women to fight those power struggles and to manipulate people…in other words, to act like men do all the time.
Women are expected to see the good person inside the asshole shell of men all the time - not for sex, but because people are complex and sometimes, in the world we live in, you have to have a hard outer shell to survive and thrive. This is ok and worth it because people are often much softer underneath. Note, though, that I said "people." Both men and women are like this. Unfortunately, when you're busy putting people on pedestals, you don't have the time or energy left to love people despite or even for their flaws.
Now, Miller's last point is that uniqueness is a key trait to look for. I actually love that he refuses to define uniqueness because, well, that would be a bit oxymoronic, wouldn't it? The thing is, it is always that "something special" that makes a person unique that forms the basis of attraction (emotional, not physical), which is what I think Mr. Miller was trying to get at in his article. But. Perfection is not unique. And, throughout the first two sections of the article, perfection - enlightened perfection, but perfection nonetheless - is what it seems the author desires.
Personally, I think Mr. Miller should try holding himself to the same standards he is holding women - not the way he suggests they be treated, but the improbable combination of traits such as passion, unflinching loyalty, and kindness - and see how long he can avoid showing the flaws he seems to dislike so much. I suspect he wouldn't last long and, while he attempts this, he wouldn't be very authentic to himself.
Because, when it comes down to real people, there are no "dream girls." There are no "dream people." We are, all of us, humans with both good and bad. Some of us are broken, some of us are so overconfident that we'd never know if we were broken or not… We all can be passionate, loyal, and kind…but we can also be selfish, manipulative, and mean at times. The only thing Miller mentions in his article that can be true for anyone all of the time is that we are, most definitely, unique.
So, let's stop imagining our "dream" partners and holding others to our ridiculous expectations. Instead, simply let ourselves be drawn to those whose uniqueness is compatible with ours.
No comments:
Post a Comment