Ruminations of a confused satellite/ planet
--Disclaimer: As against my own principle, I am making a lot of generalizations here. Caution.--
I read an interesting opinion today, about women. Quoting D.H. Lawrence, from "Women in Love":
"And woman is the same as horses: two wills act in opposition inside her. With one will, she wants to subject herself utterly. With the other she wants to bolt, and pitch her rider to perdition."
I won't be fair if I deny the first bout of horror (no doubt, feminist in origin) that came to my head; to sample a few- Not a horse, surely! And so judgmental! To define an entire race in mere 40 words!- and so the rest. But a calmer examination of these words opened up another universe of meaning to me.
No doubt there is more to women than horses alone. Of course, men can't ride on their backs (and backs alone i mean). But come to think of it, there are two wills inside me at times; and I am a woman- though a poor sample set, but that is the beauty of generalities, who cares about sample sets- and; I have experienced the conflict. We, the women of twenty first century- now that I have absolved myself of the sin of generalizations (see Disclaimer)- do not want men to ride us any longer. We claim of, want to exercise and bask in the glory of independent wills and some of us actually dream of turning the tables of the social order around some day. But deep down- I admit- I long to serve; however intermittently. I want to subject myself and be acknowledged for the utterness of the subjection; to be led at times and not lead or walk in step.
But, does that bring us back to the society we are all running from; or eagerly trying to put in the history books and muse about at leisure? Or is it that there are certain qualities about nature or the essence of a species that forever remains unchanged? To be true, I do not like the sound of the latter, because that makes one wonder about the point of progress in the first place. Are the proud women of today running from an instinct that our ancestors were smart enough to embrace in the first place?
I do not know the answers to the above questions. But what I know is that women do want to subject themselves. But the same women also want to bolt and shake off the rider. Maybe the world is closing to the point of balance where both the instincts would nullify or equate themselves in the number of instances they manifest themselves in. I think that is what Lawrence himself tried to achieve later in the book when he talks about "two single equal stars, balanced in conjunction.." and not a planet-satellite relationship, irrespective of who the satellite is.
I read an interesting opinion today, about women. Quoting D.H. Lawrence, from "Women in Love":"And woman is the same as horses: two wills act in opposition inside her. With one will, she wants to subject herself utterly. With the other she wants to bolt, and pitch her rider to perdition."
I won't be fair if I deny the first bout of horror (no doubt, feminist in origin) that came to my head; to sample a few- Not a horse, surely! And so judgmental! To define an entire race in mere 40 words!- and so the rest. But a calmer examination of these words opened up another universe of meaning to me.
No doubt there is more to women than horses alone. Of course, men can't ride on their backs (and backs alone i mean). But come to think of it, there are two wills inside me at times; and I am a woman- though a poor sample set, but that is the beauty of generalities, who cares about sample sets- and; I have experienced the conflict. We, the women of twenty first century- now that I have absolved myself of the sin of generalizations (see Disclaimer)- do not want men to ride us any longer. We claim of, want to exercise and bask in the glory of independent wills and some of us actually dream of turning the tables of the social order around some day. But deep down- I admit- I long to serve; however intermittently. I want to subject myself and be acknowledged for the utterness of the subjection; to be led at times and not lead or walk in step.
But, does that bring us back to the society we are all running from; or eagerly trying to put in the history books and muse about at leisure? Or is it that there are certain qualities about nature or the essence of a species that forever remains unchanged? To be true, I do not like the sound of the latter, because that makes one wonder about the point of progress in the first place. Are the proud women of today running from an instinct that our ancestors were smart enough to embrace in the first place?
I do not know the answers to the above questions. But what I know is that women do want to subject themselves. But the same women also want to bolt and shake off the rider. Maybe the world is closing to the point of balance where both the instincts would nullify or equate themselves in the number of instances they manifest themselves in. I think that is what Lawrence himself tried to achieve later in the book when he talks about "two single equal stars, balanced in conjunction.." and not a planet-satellite relationship, irrespective of who the satellite is.
umm..my views on this:
ReplyDeleteYour composition is Very Very frank and probably easily mis-interpretable by both men and women.
About the 'questions', I think a sense of independence and self reliance brings along the 'get off my back' attitude, which men have been enjoying since ages. Our instincts I believe, do make us want to be subjected, but this is just what we are like; isn't it better to accept this along with the 'newer' instincts we are developing?
The point of progress is in itself a wholly separate debatable issue. Natural instincts and acquired instincts both deserve acknowledgment, by the both sexes. We women can't for instance start heading towards proving ourselves physically stronger than men (i'm talking in aggregates)..
Running towards (entirely) or from our natural selves won't reward us much..
This was my fall-of-the-chair-moment-of-the-day:
ReplyDelete"We, the women of twenty first century- ... - do not want men to ride us any longer."
I will quote you out of context in future. I have to.