Throughout the day, this HuffPo link has been posted in my timelines more than once:
It’s the post from an author called Amy Turner about how she feels “cool” girls die alone. She has an interesting theory, really. Except the problem with her text is that cool there is interchangeable with self-sufficient, well-educated, tough, with nice jobs. It’s her belief, it seems, that women like that need to be in control. “Control kills intimacy”, she says. And having both things aren’t possible. She talks about buying a home (contrasting with hard-working/well-earned women who have money to buy their own homes) is something that is worth it when you share this home with someone. Can we say “awwww”?
The woman has an idea there, except she’s got it all mixed up. Maybe I’m a hypocrite to be writing about this literally just a couple this after talking to my friend about how I’d end up alone because I just don’t connect to people and how all I’ve ever wanted in my life was a great and satisfying job, but hear me out.
What I’ve always believed — and I blogged about it just the other day! — is that we go through life and we meet people who make us happy in different moments of our lives. There may not be one single person for us, but there’ll be different people who will be there, throughout the years, the decades. And the way we go about life, how we see it, and doesn’t make us unable to meet these people. It just changes the sort of people we are going to be involved with.
Amy Turner talks about buying aprons and making casseroles, as if that aspect of a homey life makes any woman more of a wife/girlfriend material, as if that makes anyone more lovable. Dude, I’ve had two grandmothers who were married their whole lives. One of them never stepped into a kitchen. Both worked out. One was a lawyer/banker/historician (most awesome person ever), the other was an engineer. And this was the 1950s! They were both loved, cared for, and one of them died surrounded by all the love in the world.
We’re in 2013 now. The idea that being tough and cool and career-focus and in control of yourself and your body and your life keeps you from being sweet and kind and and warm and from giving yourself completely to someone else is sort of unimaginable. I’m sorry, Amy Turner. But you were talking about going back in time and giving up power. You don’t need to give up anything t be loved. You don’t need to give up femininity to have a full time job, or motherhood to work out. You can make casseroles in aprons (personally, I love baking instead), and you can go out and do your job, and come back, and build a home. I don’t see, and I can’t see, why they’re mutually exclusive.
The idea that control kills intimacy is worrisome, and it worries more that is being sold out there. We all need to have control over something. Of course we do. Who’s gonna have control over us, then? Over our bodies, over our lives. That doesn’t mean we can give love, and care, and parts of ourselves to others. It doesn’t mean we can’t make ourselves vulnerable. Of course, some people have issues and can’t get past something that happened and give themselves up. But you can’t generalize it. In this century, most women will work out, have emotional, financial, physical power over themselves and still be able to live full happy lives with someone else.
If not, then what are we living for? Also, ‘control’ means knowing when to keep back and when to give up. Women who have control over themselves are the ones who let themselves go, who are emotionally mature and ready to fall in love, to be intimate. They’re the ones who aren’t being controlled by their past, their failures, their insecurities.
So, I disagree. I think once you have control over yourself, your life, your career, then you’re ready for intimacy, for sharing that with someone else. Someone you can let go of the control and let yourself be. Isn’t that just awesome?
So, what do you guys think? Do you think ‘Cool Girls Die Alone’? Do you think girls who have control have a harder time having intimacy? Talk to me!