Quote:
Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli
Or rather shorthand for a Paris Hilton, a Britney Spears or an Anna Nicole Smith. Surely you're not asserting in some uber-Pagliesque way that bimbohood is the new postmodern feminism, are you?
|
Yes many people (well, women, men are after all only interested in intellectual pursuits aren't they?
) do have little interest in anything other than clothes and make-up and socialising. But the point Lewis makes is odious. There is nothing
wrong in women (let's stick to it) being interested in these things, in fact it's perfectly ordinary and always has been - and I find it quite insulting that because I'm overly fond of handbags and enjoy reading about fashion in Grazia, some old professor in his dusty tweed suit thinks I'm at best 'silly' and at worst 'immoral'.
Had Lewis said that Susan had grown interested in little else than jackboots, knives and guns then he may have had a moral point to make, but there is nothing wrong in the harmless pursuit of the trappings of adult womanhood - I'm afraid that he did not see that such things as clothes and make-up are enjoyed by about 99% of women and there is absolutely no harm in that, even if their insistence that getting their lippie
just so before going for a night out
does make you half an hour late and give you something to moan about at length when you meet your pals in the pub.
I'm reminded of the saying 'typical man'.
It's rather as if someone has just spent ages and ages creating this beautiful (but quite twee) painting and then has got in a temper towards the end and dropped a blot of red paint on it.
Whatever, all the lengthy essays in the world to explain away this inkblot by Lewis only serve to make the excuses even more tortured. Why not just be done and say "Sorry, Miss, the dog ate my homework." I'd rather leave it that Lewis just didn't know what to do with a character he didn't like any more so he decided to write her out in a most unpleasant and dissmissive way, because the alternative, that she was in some way immoral just for doing what girls do, is quite disturbing and says a whole lot more about Lewis and his Victor Meldrew-ish attitude towards young women than it does about such young women.
Let's contrast the attitude of Lewis with that of Tolkien who cast no moral judgements on his own 'silly women' who clearly took huge pleasure in such trivialities as dancing and embroidery - in fact their indulging in 'silly' girlish things became heroic - Arwen's 'silly' embroidery was taken into battle in the form of Aragorn's inspiring standard; Luthien's 'silly' dancing managed to attract the love interest of Beren and we know the rest...
Tolkien was a man who knew a little more of what women were about, because he'd loved one from a young age and had a clutch of children with said woman; what's more he had even more contact with women in his professional life - due to being a married man he was permitted to be personal tutor to female students. He lived in a wider world than Lewis and you can tell by how he writes about his women. Sure, they're not the modern women that Pullman and Rowling write so wonderfully about (don't get me started on how Lyra and Hermione are marvellous...) but they aren't cloistered either. They do bad things, trivial things, and heroic things, but what's more, there's not a lot that the Tolkien fan must find excuses for...
Now excuse me while I go and put my face on.
