Gender is a really touchy subject these days, especially in the world of the arts. There has been so much prejudice and suffering all in the name of gender that there is a pronounced fear of the very topic. I am bound to offend someone with my thoughts. . .
I was working with a young woman today on her monologues. The monologue was from the 1950’s. I was trying to help her understand that the way a young woman would respond to a love interest in the world of today would be entirely different for the 1950’s. We stood and talked a bit about history. We talked about the limited prospects of women and the time – we talked about the prejudice against any woman that would chose the work world over being a stay-at-home mom. We talked about how the girl would never ask the guy out for a date. The man would always pay for the date. The man was defined as the dominant, and the woman as the submissive.
This young actress was shocked that I even offered up the ideas – – but then she was about to get even more outraged. I asked her in the scene to practice more of her “feminine wiles.” Apart from a quick vocabulary lesson she was aghast at the idea that a woman would ever use her femininity as a strategy to lure a man. Wasn’t this humiliating for the woman? Didn’t she just puke a bit in her mouth at the idea of batting her eyes and fanning his masculinity? Why couldn’t the woman just be upfront with her needs and views rather then playing the cunning manipulations of the “wiles”?
Now I was stuck. As a male teacher, I knew of women’s liberation. I have seen it. My mother covered the big picture for me. But I was stuck. Can a modern woman who has embraced feminist doctrine – – can a woman who has sought equality in all aspects of her life – – can that same woman practice her “feminine wiles” or is that one more taboo that cannot be spoken of in public school? Does the term “feminist wiles” offend a feminist?
Whether offended or not, I certainly know that women of the 1950’s played a different game and understood that there was a way to “play” a man for what she wanted. The successful woman understood that masculinity and femininity are two entire different worlds – – and to “play” a man you had to exploit all of the beliefs that a man holds dear – especially masculinity – ideas that make him a man in the first place.
Men and women are very different and theatre pre-1990 certainly exploits the polarity between the two sexes. To deprive one of these plays of its stereotype and sexist energy is to castrate the play and the story in more ways then one.
For the moment with this young actress I strayed away from a conversation of the “wiles” and spoke of it simply as flirting. I didn’t think that would get me in trouble with anyone.