by Kristin Scheimer
Romantic relationships* are as complex, complicated and
diverse as the 7 billion people on this planet.
I’m sure I could write several books on the subject, but today I will be
focusing on one specific element that comes up for some women.
It’s the idea that they are “intimidating”, what that means,
why this happens and what can be done about it. There seem to be many answers to these
questions, but I think for many women what it comes down to is perception.
Society gives us many of our perceptions. There are ideas of what roles women should
play in relationships and what roles men should play. Historically speaking, men have been the
breadwinner, the protector, and the strength of the relationship.
In the times of hunters and gatherers, men left the
community to hunt. If danger approached, they were the
protectors.
Women stayed closer to home, gathering food, which required
less physical strength than hunting.
Now imagine there’s that one woman who wants to go out and
hunt. She fights and is just as physically
strong as many of the men in the tribe.
How likely is it that she will be able to embrace this role and still
find a mate who is ok with this?
But here’s where I believe perception can sometimes be skewed. Just because she can hunt and fight doesn’t necessarily
mean she doesn’t have the same yearning for a soft and vulnerable relationship with
a man as a woman who takes on a more traditional role.
There are many elements to this idea of “intimidating”
women. Some people think men’s
insecurities keep them from pursuing a smart, strong, independent woman. Some men may have been burned by strong women,
who weren’t able to be vulnerable and intimate. Perhaps
these women struggle so much with being smart, strong and independent in a
world where this can still be difficult for women, that they feel they can
never turn this off, even in their interactions with men.
But I think in many cases - in my own experience and those
of many of my friends - there’s a perception that if we are smart, strong and
independent, we don’t want or need a man, making men feel that they have no place
in a relationship with us. The truth
is, there are actually a fair number of “intimidating” women who want
to be vulnerable and cared for by a man.
In looking for
examples in film and television of a smart, strong, independent woman who is
also vulnerable and intimate in a relationship with a man, I was surprised to
find few examples (and realized this is a vacuum this screenwriter can possibly
fill!)
On “Bones” Temperance
Brennan struggles with being intimate and vulnerable, although she has come a
long way in that area. Again this does
seem to be the case for some of these “intimidating” women. They find it difficult to balance the two.
On “Castle” Richard
Castle isn’t afraid to let Kate Beckett be strong, but he also doesn’t take on
a traditional male role. He is more
childlike. He doesn’t seem to be
intimidated by her strength, so much as he enjoys it.
However, Beckett is a good example of a
character who is smart, strong and independent, but also soft and vulnerable
with her mate.
But the role model I’m choosing for this discussion is Agent
Carter from Marvel’s “Agent Carter”.
There are several reasons for this.
First of all, the time period in which the show is set is post World War
II, a time when the roles of men and women were very clearly defined.
Advertisements during World War II were all about tailored suits for women and products that could help women in the workplace. This is because, with all the men at war, women were needed to go to work to fill the many empty jobs in offices and factories.
However, post World War II, men returned
home and wanted their jobs back. Women
were encouraged, very strongly, to return to the home and their roles as demure
females.
Advertisements changed, touting
the wonderful new home appliances, which made housework so much easier.
Fashion changed to a more flowing, girly dress
style, and there was a definite message that women were there to run the
household while their men went to work.
Whether this was a reflection of society or intended to
shape society, it was made very clear what the relationship should be between a
man and his wife.
Into this environment appears Agent Peggy Carter.
I loved “Agent Carter”.
I thought her character was kickass even by today’s standards. Yet, whenever Captain America came up on the show and in
the first Captain America film, you could see her softer, vulnerable side.
And that’s the quandary that many smart, strong, independent
women face. We have been told on
numerous occasions that we intimidate men.
To us, this is ludicrous, because as kickass as we may be in a lot of
ways, we get weak in the knees and just want to be intimate and vulnerable with
the man of our dreams.
Is this an oxymoron? The number of times I’ve received the message from people, from the media, from… the ether – that strong women shouldn’t need a man – has led me to be ashamed of the idea that while I am the most determined person you will meet when it comes to my career, I also, quite simply, want a man in my life.
Did Agent Carter, who jumps onto moving cars, beats up a
room full of men, uses her clever wits to outsmart the bad guys, seem any less of
herself when we saw her vulnerability that came from her love of Captain
America?
I think the makers of this fun romp did an excellent job of
balancing the two sides of Peggy Carter.
She’s strong - stronger than a lot of the men she encounters - but she
has a vulnerable side as well.
Are there men who would be intimidated by her? Does it take a superhero like Captain America
to be with a smart, strong, independent woman like Peggy Carter? I suppose it depends on your definition of superhero. For many of these women a superhero isn’t a
guy with super powers who goes around saving the world. He’s a guy who shows up. He has his goals and his life together, but
he also has time to be there for the woman he loves, and he is perfectly
content with her intelligence, strength and – in some areas of her life – her
independence. That’s superhero power
right there. And she will do the same
for him because that’s what all of these super heroines are looking for.
So where does that leave us?
I think ultimately what it comes down to is that the roles of men and women in all areas of society are changing and we all have to adapt and adjust to these changes.
Ironically, it was the push for women to go into the
workforce and the coercion to get them to return to the home that was the
impetus for the emerging feminist movement.
No longer were women ok with their traditional roles. They’d been sent on the hunt and told they
had to return to gathering. Some of them
were fine with that, but others liked hunting side by side with their men. The cat was out of the bag and couldn’t be
returned. Women learned they were capable of so much
more than they’d ever been allowed to be before and no one was going to put
them in a box again.
Mixed metaphors aside, what does this mean for relationships
between men and women? That might be a
bigger psychological question than I have time to answer in this short blog,
but I think the important thing in any interaction of a romantic nature is one
common thread: As humans, we are
relational beings. We all want love and
affection. People may go about it in
different ways. They put up walls
because of past hurts or fears. They
hide the vulnerability of wanting intimacy with bravado or tricks. Some may go overboard demanding affection out
of fear of losing it, but regardless of all the masks, if we can all recognize
the same need to connect, we just might be able to get past some of these
hurdles.
Despite our demand for equality in the workplace and in all
other areas of society, we should never forget that there are still fundamental
differences between the sexes, particularly when it comes to romantic
interactions.
My therapist once pointed out to me – yes, I see a therapist
– that in the physical act of love between a man and a woman, women are quite
literally open, vulnerable and receiving to men… giving… to them. So perhaps there’s something in our nature
that tells us, at least in romantic relationships, women will always be soft
and open to their men. That’s not a
weakness. It’s nature. It doesn’t mean that same woman can’t go out
into the workforce and kick some ass. Just
as men can go out and be mighty successes, but still come home and be loving
and caring to their wives. The truth is,
no one has the answer, because in the history of the human race, these changing
roles of men and women are relatively new.
But this is again where I feel the entertainment industry
can come into play. One often hears
actresses complaining that there aren’t enough good, strong roles for
women. Perhaps what we need to explore
are these changing ideas of what a woman is and how that affects their
interaction with men. Perhaps we need
more characters like Peggy Carter, who can thwart a band of baddies, but still
long to return to the strong comforting arms of Captain America.
*For the purposes of this article only – as it deals with gender
roles – when I refer to romantic relationships, I am referring to relationships
between a man and a woman.
