The Cinderella Complex

While reading page 16 of "The Cinderella Complex" the supposed split between women and men, their training, caught my eye. I had just been discussing this sort of thing with a resident of mine. We were closer to the concept of same-sex friendships and how the sexes might grow into them. I offered that men had fewer close friends because they were taught not to open up but at the same time they were hurt less by each other. Women are supposedly taught to rely on others, to open up and expect reciprocation. They also get hurt far more often.

The issue, then, becomes one of depth.

I've seen many a female friend recover well, and swiftly, from various daggers in the back.

My male friends however, take true slights deeply and let go slowly, if ever.

This is connected to the topic via "love" of course, the sharpest of double-edged blades.

Page 17 doesn't seem so bad to me.

And that isn't "so bad for a woman," but that it doesn't seem so bad for anyone.

Maybe that's because I appreciate the work it takes to keep a home. I recognize the loss in terms of "career" but also what's gained in the trade.

I'd love to be a stay-at-home dad. I'm the oldest of three and the primary parent in my life was my mother, I'm as much a parental figure to my siblings than either "parent" if not more so.




I've never believed someone could "save me."

Not because I was trained to "save myself" but because it's ridiculous. There are too many things in this world for any one person to simply change it all.

I do believe, though, that "another," can give you the energy, the motivation to save yourself.



I believe I'm a better person when with someone. It's easier to get up in the morning, I want to be a better person for her. I can't keep slipping or just "getting by." I have to improve, to strive.

Which is terrible.

Not only is that sad, speaking of my own failures more than anything, but it's hypocritical.

That would be because I self-report as being attracted to confident, strong women who have control of their lives, the ones that don't need me but want me.

It's a small distinction but an important one.



It's nice to be needed...it is better to be wanted.

A woman who has her life under-control, doesn't "need" me to be happy but wants me anyway, is far more attractive to me than a person who only keeps it together because of me.

Of course, such a relationship waxes and wanes in that department. I've been through them both multiple times.

Sorry if this is confusing, I'm still figuring things out.
__________________________________________

Turning now to "Weight."

"In the artistic retelling of fairy tales, does art help counteract 'ideology,' the wounds of wishes, the bits that structure the way we live."

I highlighted one line from the "Weight," it's not particularly unique, I've written it before, but just as Winterson places it within a context of "recognition" I too saw something familiar.

"There is no other way."

I don't think there is a counteraction to the construction of ideology, only the construction, perhaps reconstruction but no true counteraction because you do not live without ideology. It's always there. It should, however, always be questioned, changed, adapted, grown, reinforced.

In the same way I consider most things art, I look for meaning in anything and everything, so "it" is all art, life is art and it all contributes to who I am, even if it takes away, even if it wounds me.

You learn more from mistakes than successes "they" say.

After all, there is no other way.

Retelling, reshaping, a story, a fairy tale, is about seeing someone's ideology and recognizing some of it in your own and then going beyond that and integrating it within your own.

Nothing is perfect (except perhaps imperfection)...but you can make it personal.

And in that step, maybe you'll bring it closer to someone else's ideology, making it that much easier for them to do the same.

By "idealogy," I mean one's worldview. Do things happen to you or because of you? Do you think you have control of your life or does the world have control of you? If something "bad" happens to you, do you blame others or yourself? Do you believe the world should change before you should? How do you view yourself? Do you consider yourself a good person? Hard-working? Lazy? WHY? Is it accurate? Would others agree or disagree with you?

When you meet someone new, and get to know them, you get to see a little of how they see the world, themselves, and you. Maybe you respect their position, maybe you don't, but either way it throws your own perspective into a new light. In this way, I do not believe there is any true "reconstruction" of self, merely construction. Large parts might need to be renovated but if a true reconstruction happened, an absolute ripping out of "who you are and how you view the world," then I'd question if you believed or considered any part of yourself and the world around in a serious manner before.

I have had my worldview shattered, I've seen it happen to other people - helped them through it in fact - and the best way I've found to keep going is not to simply restart, but to shift through the pieces worth keeping.

The more we connect, the more lights we set up on the stage, the brighter the picture, the closer we get to each other. I don't know if, and honestly don't believe, anyone can truly know someone else as well as they can know themselves...but that shouldn't stop any one of us from trying.