Proscrastination
This morning, after breakfast was done and the dog fed, and after sorting out the chooks for the day, I, feeling the need for just a few cheeky extra moments of procrastination, cleaned the loo and the sink and the mirror. When done, I went into the garden and cut a small clump of pink geranium flowers, popped them in a little clear-glass bottle, filled the bottle with water, and set them out. There: a sparkly, sparkling bathroom; and it always makes me feel brilliant. Until I walk down to the writing-room with a strong mug of coffee in hand, turn on my computer and think, Oh Christ, I can’t remember where I’m up to.
Just activities
The point of all this? Manhood. Or, at least, gender. The thing is I’ve spent much of the last few weeks (on top of much of the last four and a half decades) thinking – worrying – about gender. Along with most of Australia, probably. Gender, sexism, equality: this is the stuff that’s currently flooding our radios and TVs and websites and newspapers. But I don’t understand what any of it really means. Last week over at Verity La I wrote an editorial about gender equality in terms of what the journal publishes, and I introduced the piece by saying that I simply don’t know what makes a man and what makes a woman. Of course, we can talk in general terms, we can make observations based on assumptions. Even though gender isn’t always black and white, it’s actually the notions of masculinity and femininity that are the hardest to define. Is fixing a car a masculine activity? Is cooking chicken soup a feminine activity? Is tinkering in the shed with hammers and nails a masculine activity? Is, oh I don’t know, blogging a feminine activity? In the end the only rational conclusion is that these are just activities. But if anyone knows of a logical definition of masculinity and femininity, do feel free to share it.
Political tedium
Yet one of the core precepts of human life is gender and what this enables and entitles us to do between being born and kicking the bucket. In Australian political life, men wear dark-coloured suits with blue ties; woman wear whatever they want, more or less, though a pearl necklace, it seems, should be seriously considered if you’re in a leadership position. Men can say whatever they want, even swear (hopefully off-camera), but it wouldn’t be right for women (even off-camera). Men can be ruthless, but when women do the same we’re advised to approach with caution – she may be dangerous or mad, or even a witch.
The welfare of a child
Closer to home, I’ve been thinking about the welfare of children raised by same-sex parents. I used to believe that as long as, say, the son of a lesbian couple had access to a good father-figure (an uncle or high-quality family friend), then all would be right with the world. But what exactly is that father-figure meant to do? Teach the son how to kick a footie and do air-guitar to AC/DC? It’s just rubbish. So my thinking evolved to this: as long as the son has access to masculine and feminine influences (both of which could be found in his two mothers) then all would be right with the world. But does that mean one of the mothers has to be good at climbing onto the roof to clean out the gutters (a supposedly masculine trait) while the other has to be good at getting down on her hands and knees to clean the kitchen floors (a supposedly feminine trait)? It’s totally absurd. So recently my thinking has evolved to this: as long as the son is loved and protected and encouraged and challenged all will be right with the world; one day he might even climb the food-chain to be deputy prime-minister.
Best-ever novels, Fred Nile and the Australian soccer team
But here’s a thing: even closer to home, when I think of my favourite novels, you know, the ones that I’d rescue if the house was burning down around my ears, all but one (Brokeback Mountain by Annie Proulx) are written by men, and all of them (except, ironically, The Blackwater Lightship by Colm Tobin) are about men finding their way in the world and, quite honestly, fucking it up as they go here, there, and everywhere. Further, as I pointed out over at Verity La, there is a distinct bias towards male writers in the work the journal publishes – and I’m the one who makes the decisions. Surely it goes beyond my personal sexuality (which, sorry Fred Nile, is genetic) to something sinister: in society, and in the way we move through and within society, men have an access-all-areas voice while women must know their place. Cue: the coach of the Australian soccer team and his completely and utterly ridiculous ‘private joke’.
Making crap up
It’s pretty handy that as Australians we live in an environment where these matters can be discussed so freely and openly (though I’d be brave to the point of stupidity to chew this stuff over with some mates down at my Goulburn local). It’s also interesting that these issues have been brought to front of stage by a female prime-minister who is, rightly or wrongly (perhaps both), and consciously or unconsciously (perhaps both), using her gender to bolster her government (which has, it should be said, achieved a lot despite almost crippling political and economic circumstances). But it would be good to reach the chapter – I thought we had already, but clearly I was wrong – where actions are just actions: they don’t have sex or genders. Like picking pink flowers for the bathroom. But it’s likely this is me just being a bit of a fairy. And, as always, making crap up.
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 15, 2013 at 9:16+00:00Jun
Nana Jo
Superb article, Nigel! I have five grandchildren, two girls, three boys, ranging in age from 10 years to 16 months. I don’t believe in guiding children towards the gender ’appropriate’, or in defining for them what that may mean. It’s a matter of respecting and accepting individuality.
My youngest grandson (age 6) recently attended a princess themed birthday party. When my son picked him up, he appeared on the front porch wearing a sparkly pink princess tiara on his head, and carrying a shiny pink princess sceptre in one hand and a pink princess goodie bag in the other. He was beaming. The party hostess asked my son if he minded. “Mind?”, said my son, asked. “What’s to mind? Pink is his favourite colour.”
Let’s be doggedly open to the mystery and beauty and diversity of our children and grandchildren. In the infinite abyss of human hunger, may they always feel the shelter of love.
June 15, 2013 at 9:16+00:00Jun
Nigel Featherstone
Hi Nana Jo, great to hear from you again – twice in a week! Brilliant.
Two things in particular I love about your comment:
– this: ‘What’s to mind? Pink is his favourite colour’; and
– being open to the ‘mystery’ and ‘diversity’ of our children and grandchildren (and might I add nieces and nephews)
Thanks so much.
June 15, 2013 at 9:16+00:00Jun
middlec23
Hi from another writer, procrastinating by reading your blog, which I love. Brokeback Mountain is a favourite and inspiration for me too.
June 15, 2013 at 9:16+00:00Jun
Nigel Featherstone
Hi middlec23, thanks for your kind comments. What Proulx does with prose in ‘Brokeback Mountain’ is almost beyond belief. All the best to you and your writing.
June 15, 2013 at 9:16+00:00Jun
broadsideblog
I often feel like a guy in a girl suit. Not that I hate being female or anything like that, but I never focus a lot of energy on being womanly (huh?) and just get ON with it, whether it is hammering and sanding and working with my hands or cooking or drawing or taking a photo. I was very, very lucky to be a teen girl in Canada at the height of second wave feminism…it really helped me stay away from a lot of this narrow silliness about who or what we are supposed to be.
We are supposed to be our glorious selves. Ca suffit. Yay for pink flowers and clean bathrooms.
June 15, 2013 at 9:16+00:00Jun
Nigel Featherstone
Hi Cait, ‘narrow silliness’ – as always you are spot on. Somehow, here in Australia, we seem to be going backwards. Politicians speaking in the most hopelessly simplistic terms, a media that, to a large extent, is coping with its own changes so is struggling to do its job, and a populace that’s getting more confused.
‘We are supposed to be our glorious selves’ – amen to that!
June 15, 2013 at 9:16+00:00Jun
Jean Paul Vincent
I saw the same profoundly human elegance in the way you reached your writing room yesterday morning and the way you came to not knowing what makes a man and what makes a woman. You brought a measure of comfort to this little writing room a few seas away from yours.
June 15, 2013 at 9:16+00:00Jun
Nigel Featherstone
Hi Jean Paul, thanks so much for commenting. So glad that this humble little old blog can do something as necessary and amazing as providing comfort across the seas. All the very best to you and our work.
June 16, 2013 at 9:16+00:00Jun
Geoff
Great post … I’ve never had any real idea either. Sometimes I feel I have grasped it (sort of) only to find that I’ve missed whatever it is entirely. I recall thinking very strongly on this subject when I found our first child was to be a boy … I thought “I’ve got no idea how to teach him to be a man” I felt some real distress over this … that I would somehow be ‘letting the team down’ … it was all tosh of course and I figured that as long as I showed compassion, honesty and love it would all turn out OK … after all it’s kinda his life task to work out the kind of guy he wants to be too 🙂
June 17, 2013 at 9:16+00:00Jun
Nigel Featherstone
Thanks Geoff. It’s lovely – and, quite frankly, inspiring – to hear of a dad who just wants their child to work out the kind of guy he/she wants to be. As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m no gender-theorist, and I’m not a father, nor do I want to be one, but I do get the sense that it’d be great if more parents could be like you: just let their children become whoever they need to be, and leave gender out of it.
June 21, 2013 at 9:16+00:00Jun
Gabrielle Bryden
Terrific post Nigel. We’re a thousand miles from gender equality in Australia – and 20,000 miles in some other countries. I used to think the gap was closely nicely but I was wrong too – and having Julia Gillard as PM has only highlighted the problem. I have the highest admiration for her thick skin – not many males or females could put up with the crap she has had to take. If humans were less judgmental than the issues of gender would fade into the background – for there is nothing wrong with a feminine male or a masculine female (and many advantages) – but many people believe there is something wrong with these things – why, I don’t know. But humans are judgmental – about many things – and it is not a good thing – focus on the behaviour not the person, as they say.
June 21, 2013 at 9:16+00:00Jun
Nigel Featherstone
Hi Gabe, ditto everything you say. Interesting that Pauline Hanson, who’s not someone I admire (except for her determination), managed to bring to the surface Australia’s racist underbelly, so in this way perhaps democracy is a good thing. Same with Gillard: I’m not uncritical of her, and I strongly object to the way she’s used the gay-marriage debate for her own political purposes, but I do think she’s managed to achieve a lot in very difficult circumstances – everyone said her government wouldn’t (couldn’t) last but it has and gone on to implement significant reforms. An example? Raising the tax-free threshold to $18,000, which means a heck of a lot of people, including artists, might have a chance at surviving. All this against a backdrop of, as you point out, sexism. I just don’t think Australia as a body politic is psychologically mature/secure enough to judge politicians on their policies, not their genders.