Comments on: Lessons for Girls

By: On Doing What You Want To | Z-Xiuhtecuhtli

On Doing What You Want To | Z-Xiuhtecuhtli — Fri, 13 May 2011 06:42:22 +0000

[...] that while we knew we could work, we felt that having a work or works was for others. This is a lesson for girls, and it is [...]

By: xheralt

xheralt — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:22:53 +0000

I see, with some dismay, that the problem firefoot noted still exists; the blog entry (and, in fact, the entire blog) linked to as Lesson #6 is missing, and that in all the months that have passed since firefoot’s post, the entry has not been corrected, replaced, or even addressed by the original author. The article is not findable via wayback machine. Surely firefoot and I aren’t the only ones who wanted to see (and potentially share, and/or benefit from) that lesson. While exact text may be lost, is there anyone who could at least paraphrase it here?

By: Anti-volunteerism, and other career saving strategies : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present

Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:50:28 +0000

[...] so do what you need to do to succeed. (I think I need to add that post to our collection of Lessons for Girls.) And if you aren’t in fact a girl–well, live it [...]

By: squadratomagico » Blog Archive » improved stepford wife technology!

squadratomagico » Blog Archive » improved stepford wife technology! — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:33:56 +0000

[...] was one titled “lessons for girls: you don’t have to be a mom,” part of Historiann’s “Lessons for Girls” series. One item of discussion was an idea I mentioned in passing: that some researchers believe [...]

By: firefoot

firefoot — Tue, 04 May 2010 11:33:44 +0000

Hello,

Thank you for this repository; it has been good to read. However, I’m afraid the linked post under “No Apologies” is no longer in existence. Is there an alternate site where the piece has been posted?

Thanks for your time

By: Women in science: Why So Few? : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:05:00 +0000

[...] our old “Lessons For Girls,” especially #1, “Anger,” and #7, “It’s okay if not everyone likes [...]

By: m Andrea

m Andrea — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:55:43 +0000

Dearest Historiann,

HA! A feminist historian! Just what I was looking for!

I shall peruse your luscious offerings and then come back to, in no particular order, pester you with questions and shower you with compliments.

Sincerely, with all due respect and regards, etc.
meeeeeeeeee

lol

By: Lessons for Girls 16: Romance is for Fun. And: Hold On To Your Computer, House, and Car. « Professor Zero

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:48:04 +0000

[...] which is an honor. Historiann’s title for my post, part of her feminist series Lessons for Girls, is “Romance Is For Your Pleasure and Enjoyment.” I offer a revised and expanded [...]

By: Lessons for Girls #16: Romance is for your pleasure and enjoyment : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:44:30 +0000

[...] Zero has posted an excellent addition to our occasional series, Lessons for Girls, which I have entitled “Romance is for your pleasure and enjoyment.” Go read the [...]

By: Professor Zero

Professor Zero — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:59:42 +0000

It’s perhaps too specific, and it might be a subset of a more general topic, but I thought of another one. I can’t post it on my blog because my parents read that.

Part A: dates, and “relationships,” should be more relaxed/pleasant than ordeal-like. Part B: it’s OK to be in them for you (as opposed to in service to the other person).

I remember that I believed these things in the 8th grade and disagreed with the nun (yes!) who was called into our public school to teach sex education to girls. She said dating was to find out who you’d like to marry. I had never been on a date but I suspected the purpose of them was to go do something interesting and fun with an interesting and fun person.

Since my mid thirties, however, I’ve had recurrent trouble with men who (a) think one should have sex to serve and please them; (b) are not sure one should have it to please oneself, unless that can benefit them with some kind of visual show; (c) are convinced women want them and that they can therefore get away with various types of poor behavior and not be frozen out.

Eventually this shook my sense of reality that I went to see a therapist, who reminded me of ideas (A) and (B) (in the second paragraph). Even though these ideas had once seemed obvious to me, it was amazing to me by that point to have someone confirm that they really weren’t “too selfish.”

Recently I’ve realized that although part of the reason I try to understand these people and figure out what is going on is that I’m the guest in the culture, another part has to do with my earliest (pre feminist, pre 1967 or so) upbringing.

According to that upbringing, managing an ordeal-like relationship was part of one’s job in the same way as managing events like awkward yet necessary work related social events (e.g. job candidate dinners with colleagues who hate each other) is part of my job now.

So, girls: dates, and “relationships,” should be more relaxed/pleasant than ordeal-like, and it’s OK to be in them for you (as opposed to in service to the other person).

Corollary: beware of advice about how you should “work on” relationships and how they are “work.” Also beware of advice about how you need to compromise more, and how the burden of “communication” is on you.

My friendships don’t seem like work and struggle, they seem like pleasure and growth; my better relationships with men have felt like that too; I would really beware of all the warnings about the “work” of a relationship just because romance is involved; I think these are a trap.

(Perhaps that advice was actually invented by men who are telling themselves there is “work” in a relationship because what they are learning is, women are actual people, not dolls or something … ?)