Zašto nas tjerate da se sramimo svojih dlaka?

I dok danas mislimo kako je odstranjivanje dlaka stvar svjesnog izbora, zaboravljamo li da se ipak radi o normi koja je polagano i planirano nametnuta?

Više od ideje da moji jajnici ne rade kako treba, užasava me činjenica da nepravilan rad istih uzrokuje pretjeranu dlakavost. I dok s gotovo romantičnom glorifikacijom gledam na jednu obrvu Fride Kahlo i njene šarmantne brčiće, pomisao da dlake krase moje tijelo gnusnija mi je i od Von Trierovih šovinističkih filmova.

Gnušanje se miješa s osjećam srama kada moje dlačice iskoče tamo gdje ne bi trebale, a dok se borim između misli kako sam "oh takva feministkinja koja se ne bi trebala sramiti svog tijela kakvo god da je" i pretpostavke da je uklanjanje dlaka sastavni dio dnevne beauty rutine, pitam se gdje leži korijen našeg gnušanja kao društva prema dlakama na ženskom tijelu.

Iako smo dlake uklanjanje i mrzile oduvijek, hajka protiv istih svoj je vrhunac počela dosezati u Americi 20-ih. Promjene u odijevanju dovele su do toga da noge, a onda i pazusi postanu vidljivima, i kao takvi, jedni od ključnih elemenata ženske ljepote. Idealna je noga, kao i pazuh, naravno bila ona bez dlaka. Časopis namijenjen obiteljskom zdravlju Hygeia je u 30-ima pisao o uklanjanju dlaka kao novoj društvenoj konvenciji, a onda su se medicinskim krugovima pridružili i oni modni te časopisi poput Harpers Bazaara koji je promovirao nedlakavost kao jednu od glavnih ženskih obilježja. U 90-ima je rat objavljen i dlakavim mufovima.

I premda sama preferiram nedlakave mufove čisto jer su er... praktičniji za konzumaciju, ideja brazilske depilacije ide korak dalje od uklanja suvišnih dlaka (ukoliko dlake uopće jesu suvišne) i oštro koketira s eroticizmom mainstream porno glumica koje definiraju standard poželjnog. A kako pak po nekim drugim standardima žena mora biti nježna i ranjiva, ista takva joj mora biti i pica. Premda, nije li malčice morbidno da se muškarci lože na vagine koje podsjećaju na one djevojčica u vrtićkoj dobi?

A kad govorimo tome što muškarci vole i na što se pale, možemo li reći da recimo Marko uopće voli žene, ako ih voli jedino kad su obrijane do kože. Po toj logici Marko zapravo ne voli žene, odnosno on zapravo nije heteroseksualan jer voli samo žene koje su promijenjene na određen način, koje nakon određene radnje prestaju biti muškarci i postaju žene. To zapravo zavrjeđuje kategoriju za sebe. To je kao da ste kao muškarac orijentirani samo na žene koje su prije operacije spola bile muškarci. Možemo li to onda nazvati bivanjem straight, gay ili bi? Ili je to samo bolestan fetiš?

S druge strane, muškarac je uvijek muškarac bez obzira brije li se ili ne. Dok, žena više nije "prava" žena ako dopusti da joj rastu dlake.

Ostatak pročitaj ovdje

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you make us feel ashamed because of our body hair?

While today we think that removal of body hair is a matter of conscious choice, do we forget that it is actually a norm wich was slowly and carefully imposed?

More than the idea that my ovaries are not working properly, I am terrified by the fact that their irregular work causes excessive hairiness. And even though I watch on Frida Kahlo's unibrow and her charming mustaches with almost romantic glorification, thought that hair would adorn my body disgusts me even more than Von Trier's chauvinistic films.

Revulsion is mixed with shame when I feel my body hair pop out where they should not, and while I fight between thoughts like "oh I am such a feminist who should not be ashamed of her body no matter what" and the assumption that removal of body hair is integral part of daily beauty routine, I wonder where lies the root of our disgust as a society towards the hair on a woman's body.

Although we have always removed and hated body hair, campaign against it reached the peak in America in the 20s. Changes in how we dress have led to leg, and then the armpit being more visible, and as such, one of the key elements of female beauty. Perfect leg and an armpit, of course had to be hairless. Magazine for family health Hygeia wrote in the 30s about hair removal as a new social convention, and then medical community was followed by fashion community and magazines such as Harpers Bazaar, which promoted hairless ideal as one of the main female characteristics. In the 90s war was declared to hairy muffs too.

And although I myself prefer hairless muffs purely because they are well ...more convenient for consumption, the idea of Brazilian waxing goes a step further from removing excessive body hair (if there is such a thing as excessive body hair) and sharply flirts with the eroticism of mainstream porn actresses who define the standard of desired. And since by some other standards, women must be gentle and vulnerable, their cunts must look the same. Although, isn't it a bit morbid that men love vaginas which remind them of the vaginas which belong to the girls in the kindergarten age?

And when we talk about what men love, can we say that let's say Mark loves women in general, if he loves them only when they are shaved to the skin. By that logic Mark does not like women, or he is not really a heterosexual because he only likes women who are altered in a certain way, who after certain actions transfer from a man to a woman. It really deserves a category for itself, don't you think? It is as if you are a man oriented to women who were men before sex surgery. Can we call it straight, gay or bi then? Or is it just a sick fetish?

On the other hand, a man is always a man regardless does he shave or not. While, woman is no longer a "real" women, if she allows her body hair to grow.

Read more here

U redu je biti single - 1 dio

"U našoj je literaturi, svaka priča o potpunoj izolaciji čovjeka od njegove vrste, bilo fizičkoj ili psihičkoj, kao što je priča o Robinson Crusoeu prije nego je pronašao otisak ljudskog stopala na plaži, doživljena kao horor priča" David Potter, povjesničar

Ako u google upišete „ being single“ ili „being solo“ gotovo jedino što će vam izletjeti van su članci tipa „Sama, ali svoja“ , „10 razloga zašto je biti single tako super“ ili „Kako uživati u činjenici da ste single – 6 jednostavnih koraka“. I dok nam se odgovor na ovaj rastući fenomen nudi u obliku savjeta površnih poput Coelhovih self help knjiga zapakiranih u neukusne ljubiće, činjenica je da je sve više ljudi single, više nego u bilo kojem drugom povijesnom periodu.

Problem kod spomenutih naslova je što imaju isključivo funkciju savjeta, u smislu da savjetuju kako da prebolimo činjenicu da smo solo i usprkos tome izgradimo kvalitetan život. Kao da je bivanje single medicinski termin koji označava kakvu bolest.

No, koliko god razumijevanje ili nerazumijevanje ležalo s druge strane, govoriti o bivaju single vječito znači govoriti iz pozicije onog ili one koja se brani. Zapravo, možda je najbolje reći iz pozicije one koja se brani jer češće će žena biti ta koja mora braniti svoj solo status, nego muškarac. Osim ako niste Samantha Jones.

Pa čak se i lik Samanthe, kao uostalom cijeli "Seks i grad", pokazao potpunim promašajem, budući da se iza pretenciozno naglašene seksualne neovisnosti glavnih protagonistica zapravo skriva dobro zapakirana emocionalna ovisnost. Na kraju ispada da Carrie čitavu seriju lovi jednog frajera koji našu naizgled samostalnu, inteligentnu i uspješnu junakinju tretira kao igračku. Tako ova serija zapravo ne propagira ispunjen i zdrav samački život, nego potragu za ljubavlju, do koje se dolazi nakon što dovoljno puta svog "savršenog" muškarca odvučete u krevet. Na pamet mi pritom pada i često gotova nezdrava opsesija savršenim mužem, djecom i obitelji Charlotte York koja tako portretira tipičan obrazac žene koja može biti ispunjena jedino kao žena i majka. Ova je tema usko povezana sa singlismom (diskiminacijom osoba koje nemaju partnera) jer su i žene koje ne žele imati djecu na meti napada ili u najmanju ruku naizgled dobronamjernih savjeta poput: "Ali bit će žao kasnije", "Ti ne znaš koliki je dijete blagoslov" ili "Ostarit ćeš sama". Osobno smatram da ako netko može ići toliko daleko da tvrdi kako žena ne može biti potpuna ukoliko ne rodi, onda ja slobodno mogu reći kako mislim da većina žena zapravo ne želi imati djecu, nego misli da želi imati djecu, samo zato jer su društveno instruirane da tako misle. Odnosno, usudila bi se reći da je ta ideja usađena, kao i mnoštvo drugih ideja koje su usađene u ženski mozak, a pritom nam se "prodaju" kao biološki utemeljene.

No, da zaključimo priču sa "Seksom i gradom", ako nekim slučajem to jest priča o velikoj ljubavi, ista dakako ne funkcionira tako lako u stvarnosti.

U svakom slučaju, korijen samačke obrane leži u pretpostavci kako samci ipak jesu sretni, zadovoljni i normalni, premda naše društvo propagira sreću koja je moguća isključivo u paru. Time se ujedno propagira i strah od samoće koji se zapravo nalazi u srži ovog problema, budući da je strah od izolacije tako duboko ukorijenjen u funkcioniranje našeg društva.

Više pročitaj ovdje

Fotografije: Pinterest

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               It's OK to be single! - part 1

"In our literature, any talk of complete isolation of man from his kind, whether physical or psychological, such as the story of Robinson Crusoe before he found the imprint of a human foot on the beach, perceived as a horror story," David Potter, historian

If you type "being single" or "being solo" in google, almost the only thing that will come up are articles such as "Single, but yourself", "10 reasons why it is so great to be single" or "How to enjoy the fact that you are single - 6 simple steps". And while the answer to this growing phenomenon is offered in the form of advice, superficial as Paulo Coelho self help books packaged in tasteless love novels, the fact is that more people are single now than in any other historical period.

The problem with the aforementioned titles is that they have sole function of advice, in terms of advice on how to get over the fact that we are single and still build a productive life. As if being single is a medical term for some kind of a disease.

However, whatever understanding or misunderstanding lays on the other side, speaking of being single always means to speak from the position of the one who defends himself or herself. In fact, it may be best to say from the position of the person who defends herself, because women will often be the one who must defend their solo status, more than men. Unless you are Samantha Jones.

But even the character of Samantha, as the entire "Sex and the City", turned out to be a complete failure, since the pretentiously pronounced sexual independence of major protagonists actually hides a well packed emotional dependence. In the end it turns out that Carrie chases one guy throughoutthe whole series,who treates our seemingly independent, intelligent and successful heroine as a toy. Thus, this series does not propagate a full and healthy life of solitude, but the search for love, which is reached apparently after you drag your "perfect" man into your bed enough times. It also makes me think about often unhealthy obsession of Charlotte York with the perfect husband, children and family, who portrays typical pattern of a woman who can be fulfilled only as a wife and a mother. This theme is closely linked to singlism (discrimination of people who don't have a partner) because women who do not want to have children are also under the attack or at least seemingly well-meaning advices like: "But you will regret it later", "You do not know how much blessing is to have a child "or " You will grow old alone " I personally believe that if one can go so far as to claim that a woman can not be complete if she doesn't give birth, then I feel free to say that I think that most women don't really want to have children, but just think they do because they are socially instructed to think so. I even dare to say that this idea is implanted, as well as bunch of other ideas that were implanted in the female brain, but which are "sold" to us as biologically based.

But, to sum up the story of "Sex and the City", if by any chance it is a story of great love, of course, the same doesn't work so easily in reality.

In any case, the root of defense of single people lies in the assumption that single people are still happy, content and normal, although our society propagates happiness which is possible only in pair. This also propagates the fear of loneliness, which is actually located in the heart of the problem, since the fear of isolation is so deeply rooted in the functioning of our society.

Read more here 

Photos: Pinterest

Je li ljepota zaista estetska kategorija?

„Ljepota je dio povijesti idealizacije koja je sama dio povijesti utjehe. Ali ljepota možda neće uvijek utješiti. Ljepota lica i tijela muči, pokorava; ljepota je bahata. Ljepota koja je ljudska i ljepota koja je stvorena (umjetnost) – obje pobuđuju fantaziju o posjedovanju. Naš model ravnodušnosti dolazi od ljepote prirode – prirode koja je rezervirana, nadsvođujuća, koju je nemoguće posjedovati„ - rekla je Susan Sontag.

Sontag je tako bar donekle definirala pojam koji nastojimo dešifrirati već stoljećima, no postoji li zaista konkretan odgovor na pitanje štoljepota jest?

Iako mit o ljepoti u nekoj formi postoji od kad postoji patrijarhat, u svojoj je modernoj formi izum koji je relativno nedavno izmišljen. Svoj je procvat doživio u doba industrijske revolucije. Sasvim logično, prije razvitka tehnologija i masovne produkcije sadržaja kao što je fotografija, obična žena bila je rijetko izložena prikazima ljepote izvan Crkve. Budući da je obitelj bila produktivna jedinica, a ženski je rad nadopunjavao muški, vrijednost žena koje nisu bile aristokratkinje ili prostitutke, ležala je isključivo u njihovim radnim sposobnostima, ekonomskoj snalažljivosti, fizičkoj snazi i plodnosti. Fizička privlačnost je tako igrala ulogu za obične žene na tržištu braka, ali ljepota kakvom je mi razumijemo nije.

Nakon industrijalizacije obitelji kao radna jedinica biva uništena, a i sama veličina obitelji se smanjuje. Ovi promijenjeni obiteljski uvjeti, uz urbanizaciju, povećan tvornički sistem i bolji standard života stvaraju sasvim odvojenu sferu kućanstva, sferu čiji je primiran cilj ugoda. U skladu s tim, razvila se nova klasa pismene, aktivne žene o čijoj je submisiji ili bolje rečeno konzumerizmu kapitalizam ovisio.

Stvar se zahuktala 50- ih. Nakon Drugog svjetskog rata i potrage za novim tržištima došlo je do redefiniranje ženske ljepote pa je žena po novom modelu morala biti vječno mlada, lijepa i vitka. Kako bi prodali svoje proizvode, oglašivači su kod novih potencijalnih kupaca morali umjetno izazvati nezadovoljstvo i potrebu za nečim. Tako im je bilo lakše prodati proizvod koji bi kupcima trebao „pomoći“ da ponovno budu „sretniji“. A gdje pronaći bolju nišu za zaradu nego u industriji ljepote. Ljepota je ionako, kako to je to objasnila Susan Sontag, dio povijesti idealizacije koja je sama dio povijesti utjehe.

Ideju ljepote pobliže opisuje i Naomi Wolf koja je najpoznatija po svojoj knjizi „Mit o ljepoti“ („The Beauty Myth“) iz 1991. U predgovoru drugog izdanja iz 2002. navodi kako su uz neke od reakcije na prvo izdanje išle u smjeru Platonovog Simpozija, poznatog dijaloga na temu vječnih i nepromjenjivih ideala, u vidu rečenica poput: "Žene su ionako oduvijek patile zbog ljepote!" Spisateljica ističe kako je zanimljivo da nikom nije bilo jasno da ideali ljepote nisu pali s neba, nego da su došli od nekud i kako su tu da služe svrsi. Ta je svrha, objašnjava Wolf prvenstveno financijska, kako bi se povećao profit oglašivača čiji dolari koji dolaze od reklama dovode do toga da mediji zauzvrat kreiraju ideale. Dodaje kako je u pozadini i politička svrha. Što su žene postajale snažnije politički, to su ideali ljepote postajali teži za dostignuti, uglavnom kako bi im oduzeli energiju i usporili njegov napredak.

"Mit o ljepoti priča ovu priču: Kvaliteta pod imenom "ljepota" postoji objektivno i univerzalno. Žene moraju željeti utjeloviti tu kvalitetu, a muškarci moraju željeti posjedovati žene koje utjelovljuju taj ideal. Ovo je utjelovljenje imperativ za žene, a ne za muškarce, isto je opravdano i prirodno jer to tako biološki, seksualno i evolucijski: Snažni se muškarci bore za lijepe žene , a lijepe žene su reproduktivno uspješnije. Ženska ljepota mora biti u korelaciji s njihovom fertilnošću, a budući da je sistem baziran na na seksualnoj selekciji, to je neizbježno i nepromjenjivo", objašnjava Wolf.

Ništa od ovog nije istina. "Ljepota" je valutni sistempoput zlata. Kao svaka ekonomska jedinica, određena je politikom, a u modernim je vremenima na Zapadu postala sistem vjerovanjakoji osigurava mušku dominaciju netaknutom. Kroz pripisivanje vrijednosti ženama u vidu vertikalne hijerarhije, vodeći se kulturalno nametnutim fizičkim standardima, to je ekspresija odnosa moći u kojoj se žene moraju neprirodno natjecati za resurse koji su muškarci zauzeli za sebe. "Ljepota" isto tako nije univerzalna i nepromjenjiva. Primjerice, Zapad tvrdi da svi ideali ženske ljepote proizlaze iz Platonovog ideala žene, dok se Maori pak dive golemoj vulvi, a pleme Padug velikim grudima. Niti je "ljepota" funkcija evolucije: Njeni se ideali mijenjaju puno bržim tempom nego što je to evolucija vrsta. I Charles Darwin je sam bio neuvjeren vlastitim objašnjenjem da je "ljepota "rezultat seksualne selekcije koja je devijacija od pravila prirodne selekcije. Antropologija je opovrgnula misao da žene moraju biti lijepe kako bi bile odabrane da bi se parile...Niti je to nešto što samo žene rade, a muškarci gledaju: među Nigerijskim plemenom Woodabe, žene imaju ekonomsku moć, a pleme je opsjednuto muškom ljepotom, muškarci iz ovog plemena provedu sate u detaljnim make up seansama te se natječu provokativno naslikani uz ples, pritom koristeći zavodničke izraze lica u izborima za ljepotu u kojima su suci žene.

Wolf izvodi zaključak kako mit o ljepoti, nema povijesno i biološko opravdanje. Ona postavlja pitanje: Ako mit o ljepoti nije baziran na evoluciji, spolu, rodu, estetici ili Bogu, na čemu je onda baziran? Taj isti mit tvrdi da se u njemu radi o intimnosti, seksu, životu i slavljenju žene. Onda daje odgovor i kaže: Zapravo je sastavljen od emocionalne distance, politike, financija i seksualne represije. U mitu o ljepoti nije uopće riječ o ženama. Riječ je o muškim institucijama i institucionalnoj moći. Kvalitete koje određeni period naziva ljepotom u ženama su samo simboli ženskog ponašanja koje taj period smatra poželjnima. Kod mita o ljepoti se uvijek zapravo radi o propisivanju ponašanja, a ne izgleda.

photos by Viktor Shalom, Instagram and Pinterest

text by Iva Hanzen

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is beauty really an aesthetic category?

"Beauty is part of the history of idealization that is itself part of the history of consolation. But beauty may not always console. Beauty of face and body tortures, obeys; Beauty is arrogant. Beauty of the human and beauty that is created (art) - both excite the fantasy of possession. Our model of indifference comes from beauty of the nature - the nature which is reserved, arching, which is impossible to own " - said Susan Sontag.

Sontag at least partially defined the notion that we are trying to decipher for centuries, but is there really a concrete answer to the question of what beauty is?

Although beauty myth in some form exists since patriarchy, in its modern form is an invention that was invented relatively recently. It reached its peak in the era of the Industrial Revolution. Logically, before the development of technology and mass production of content such as photography, ordinary woman was rarely exposed to images of beauty outside the Church. Because the family was a productive unit, and women's work complemented the male's, the value of women who were not prostitutes or aristocrat, lay solely in their capacity for work, economic resourcefulness, physical strength and fertility. Physical attractiveness played the role for ordinary women in the marriage market, but beauty how we understand it today didn't.

After the industrialization, family as a work unit was destroyed, and it also decreased in size. These changed conditions of families, along with urbanization, increased factory system and better standard of living created a completely separate sphere of the household, the sphere whose uncompressed goal was pleasure. Accordingly, we developed a new class of literate, active women whose submission or should we say consumerism capitalism depended on.

The thing heated up in the 50s. After the World War II and search for new markets, there has been a redefinition of female beauty and a woman according to the new model had to be eternally young, beautiful and slim. In order to sell their products, advertisers had to artificially provoke dissatisfaction and the need for something with new potential buyers. It was easier that way for them to sell products to customers which were supposed to "help" the customers to be "happier". And where better to find a niche for making money than in the beauty industry. Beauty is anyway, as it was explained by Susan Sontag, part of the history of idealization that is itself part of the history of consolation.

The idea of beauty was also closely described by Naomi Wolf, who is best known for her book "The Beauty Myth" from 1991. In the preface to the second edition from 2002. she states that some of the reaction to the first edition went in the direction of Plato's Symposium, the famous dialogue on the eternal and immutable ideals, in the form of sentences like: "Women have always suffered because of beauty anyway!" The writer points out that it is interesting that no one realised that the ideals of beauty have not fallen from the sky, but that they came from somewhere and that are there to serve a purpose. The purpose, explains Wolf is primarily financial, to increase profits of the advertisers whose dollars which come from advertising have led the media to cerate the beauty ideals in return. She adds that in the background there is also a political purpose. As women were becoming more powerful politically, the ideals of beauty became more difficult to achieve, mainly so their energy could be weaken and their progress slowed down.

"Beauty myth tells this story: The quality called 'beauty' exists objectively and universally. Women must want to embody this quality, and men must want to possess women who embody this ideal. This embodiment is an imperative for women and not for men, the same is legitimate and natural for it is so biologically, sexually and evolutionary: Strong men battle for beautiful women, and beautiful women are reproductively successful. Female beauty must be correlated with their fertility, and since the system is based on the sexual selection, it is inevitable and unchangeable, "explains Wolf.

None of that is true. "Beauty" is an exchange system, such as gold. As each economic unit, it is determined by politics, and in modern times in the West it became a belief system that ensures male dominance intact. Through the attribution of value to women in the form of a vertical hierarchy, led by culturally imposed physical standards, it is the expression of power relations in which women must unnaturally compete for resources that are occupied by men for themselves. "Beauty" is also not universal and unchanging. For example, the West maintains the notion that all the ideals of feminine beauty derive from Plato's ideal of women, while the Maori admire enormous vulva, and tribe Padug large breasts. Nor has "beauty" any evolution function: Its ideals are changing much faster than evolution of species. And Charles Darwin himself was unconvinced with his own explanation that "beauty" is the result of sexual selection, which is a deviation from the rules of natural selection. Anthropology has refuted the idea that women must be beautiful in order to be selected to be mated ... Nor is it something that only women do, while men watch: in the Nigerian tribe Woodabe, women have economic power, and the tribe is obsessed with the male beauty, Men from this tribe spend hours in the detailed make-up sessions and compete provocatively painted while they dance, at the same time using sexy expressions in the beauty elections in which judges are women.

Wolf concludes how there is no historical and biological justification in beauty myth. She raises the question: If the beauty myth is not based on evolution, sex, gender, aesthetics, or God, what is it based on then? This same myth claims that it is about intimacy, sex, life and celebration of women. Then she gives the answer and says: It's actually made up of emotional distance, politics, finance, and sexual repression. In the beauty myth there is not even a word about women. It is about male institutions and institutional power. Qualities that a certain period calls the beauty in women are only symbols of female behavior that this period consideres desirable. eauty myth is always really about prescribing behavior, not appearance.

photos by Viktor Shalom, Instagram and Pinterest

text by Iva Hanzen

Zašto mrzimo ispovjedno u ženskom pismu? - part 2

Čak ćemo priznati da žensko ispovjedno pisanje pripada književnom stvaralaštvu, kao što se muško pisanje o osobnom i seksualnom bez pogovora uvijek nazivalo književnošću, no prihvatiti punu otvorenost ženskog ispodvjednog teksta druga je priča. Žena u svom tekstu može biti otvorena, ali do određene granice, do granice pitkosti ili da ne kažem plitkosti. Kolumnistica portala New Statesman Laurie Penny govori o paradoksu ženskog pisanja. Prema iskustvu ove autorice i na temelju onog što čuje od drugih mladih ženskih autorica, žene mogu zarađivati na svojim ispovjednim tekstovima, ali na vrlo određen način— pisanjem ukusnog, polu- feminističkog osvrta na to kako je biti mlada žena u kontekstu mode, izlaženja i dijeta, pišući i dalje dovoljno prpošno da bi se taj tekst našao u okviru onog što nude "ženski" časopisi. Bez pretjeranog upliva u ozbiljnije teme, čak i ako se radi o kolumnisticama, njihov tekst će biti smješten u lifestyledio koji prati lightteme. "Ne sviđa mi se živjeti u svijetu u kojem se žene koje pišu moraju boriti s takvim dvosmislenim porukama, u kojem njihovo iskustvo može stati u jedan uzak okvir, i ako se usude zaroniti u kaotično i zemaljsko, djeluje kao da su na sebe preuzele zadatak kreativnog solipsizma.", objašnjava Penny.

Riječ je o dvosjeklom maču. Žene, posebice one u svojim dvadestima doživljavaju pisanje o 'lakim' temama kao prečicu do uspjeha kada pišu o svojim mladim i modernim životima, pogotovo kada cijela priča ima dašak seksa i skandala. Sjetimo se samo koliko smo voljeli "Seks i grad" koji nam je slasno serviran kao svojevrsna feministička Biblija u epizodama, da bi danas, poslije više od desetljeće nakon emitiranja prve epizode s odmakom shvatili kako je ova serija puno više učinila za promociju velikih modnih brandova, nego za feminizam. Pričanje o seksu i osjećajima uz koktel je vrlo zabavna stvar, no bez dubljeg ulaženja u pitanje tjelesnog i emotivnog, uz mnoštvo vješto prikrivene mizoginije, "Seks i grad" daleko je od pokušaja da se zaista u potpunosti eksternalizira unutarnje, u čitavom spektru tame i svijetla koji pravi život neke žene zaista nosi. I onda kada se žena, zvala se ona Emily Gould ili nekako drugačije, usudi reći sve baš sve, kada govori o svim načinima na koje žena može patiti, fokusirajući se pritom na žensko tijelo i bol, kada zalazi dublje od površne priče o novim Manolo Blahnik cipela ili prekidu s frajerom, to doživljavamo ne samo kao buntovan nego i narcistički krik. A "Seksu i gradu" se ni pod koju cijenu ne može pripisati pojam "narcistički"? Budimo realni, "Seks i grad" nije ništa drugo nego eskapizam.

A Emily Gould ovog svijeta ne bježe u eskapizam, nego dapače one otvoreno govore, a ovo je nešto što govorim i iz svog srca: "Dobar dan neznanko/neznanče, ovdje sam, ovo je moje iskustvo, nimalo uljepšano, nimalo lažno. Ovo su sve moje nesigurnosti i strahovi, ovo su svi trijumfi i padovi mog iskustva i saznanja. Spremna sam podijeliti sve neugodne detalje svog života. Želim reći sve o svakom svom osjetu, patetičnoj tjeskobi i distanciranoj osami, socijalnom konzervativizmu i lažnom moralu, zaljubljenosti, ranjivosti, zanesenosti, iščekivanju, žudnji. Osjećam pritisak u mozgu koji rezultira potrebom da podijelim svoja iskustva i osjećaje, tražeći nesvjesno u konačnici prije svega empatiju, a ne pljesak mom veličanstvenom narcističkom buntovnom ja. Jer iskrenost i empatija koja je rezultat iskrenosti ono su što nas čini ljudima, malima i izgubljenima u potrazi za transcendentalnim. Uostalom, ne pjevaju li pjesnici o svom iskustvu, slikari slikaju svoje, a glumci uzimaju dio sebe kako bi se uživili u određenu ulogu? Umjetnik mora stvarati i ja vam zato moram iskazati sve svoje osjećaje jer oni će buknuti, to je želja jača od ičega. To je kao da želite stajati nasred glavnog gradskog trga i vrištati ili otići na neku planinu i vrištati ili sjediti u tramvaju mirno i odjednom osjetiti poriv da vrisnete. Čak i da vrištite u svoja četiri zida, neminovno je da će vas netko čuti, da ćete nekog uvući u svoju intimnu, uvući ga ili ju ona kako što to činite svojim pisanjem. To je nešto naprosto izvan granica vaših mogućnosti i želja. I tražeći tako nesvjesno feedback želim se osjetiti dijelom zajednice, želim naći odgovore, želim dokaz da moj rad ima smisla jer tek kad kažeš ono što ti je na duši drugome, tek tada to postaje stvarnost. Želim vam reći kako je najgore biti realan prema sebi, a onda i prema drugima, kako je teško nositi se s realnošću i konačno reći vam kako kada bi si pričali samo lijepe stvari, lagali bi jedni drugima u lice. Iznosim vam stoga sve, baš sve jer u totalu ovo je previše za jedno srce da podnese, jer u totalu radi se o gotovo biološkom impulsu da se podijelim svoje misli i iskustva javno.“

Međutim, anoniman komentator će i dalje biti okrutan, dočekati će ovu istinu na nož, nazvati je odbojnom, odbaciti takvo djelo kao djelo s književnom snagom te objasniti ga potragom za pozornošću. No, daje li takav stav pravi uvid u nečije stvaralaštvo? I što je uopće u osobnom i ispovjednom pisanju što izaziva kritički nož usmjeren na sve, ali ne i na autoričine riječi? Možda odgovor ponajviše leži u tome da se tako panično bojimo predubokih emocija, pogotovo kada one dolaze one nekad buntovne, histerične, tužne žene koja nije uvijek ono što „ljepši spol“ treba da bude, koja se usuđuje izaći iz okvira onog što se smatra ugodnim i dopuštenim.

----------------------------

    Why do we hate  the confessional in female writing? - part 2

We'll evenadmit thatfemaleconfessionalwritingfalls into thedomain ofliterature, as menwritingabout personaland sexualwasalwayscalledliterary without question, but to acceptfullopennessof femaleconfessionaltextis another story. Becausea womancan be open in her text, butto a certain extent, to some tasty or to say shallow extent. New Statesman portalcolumnistLauriePennytalks about the paradoxof women'swriting. In her own experienceandbased on what shehearsfrom the rest of youngfemaleauthors, women can make moneyon theirconfessionalwritings,but in a verydeterminedmode-by writingdelicious, semi-feminist reflections onhowis to be ayoung womanin the contextof fashion,going outanddieting, writing still flippantly enoughso their textcould fit within what"female"magazines offer. Without excessiveinfluence oftheseriousthemes,evenif a woman is acolumnist, her textwill be locatedinthe lifestyle partthat accompanieslighttopics."I don’t like to live ina world wherewomen whowritehave to contendto suchambiguousmessages,in whichtheir experiencecan fitinto avery narrow frame, andif theydare toplunge intochaoticand terrestrial, it turns out thattheyhad taken the taskof creativesolipsism.", explainsPenny.

It is adouble-edgedsword.Women, especially thosein theirtwentieshave ashortcuttopublishingsuccesswhen they write abouttheir youngandmodern lives, especially when the storyhas awhiffof sex andscandal.Just rememberhow muchwe loved"Sex and the City," whichwasdeliciouslyservedas a kind of afeministBible, in episodes,and yet withovera decade ofdetachment werealized this serieshas donemorefor the promotion ofmajor fashionbrands,thanforfeminism. Talking aboutsex and love while having a cocktail is aterriblyfun thing, but without delving into theissue of thephysical and emotional, with many cleverlydisguisedmisogyny, "Sexand the City"is farfrom trying toreallycompletelyexternalize the internal, across the entire spectrumof darkness andlightthatreallife ofsome womenactuallycarries.And thenwhen awoman whether we callherEmilyGouldor whatever, daresto say absolutely everything, when shetalks about allthe ways in which awomencan suffer, focusingon the female bodyandpain, whenshe goes deeper than thesuperficialtalkabout newManolo Blahnikshoesora breakup with someguy, it is experiencednot only as arebelliousbut alsoas a narcissisticcry. And can we not attribute the term "narcissistic" to "Sex and the City"? Let's be realistic, "Sexand the City"is nothing more thanescapism.

And Emily Goulds of this world don’t run into escapism, but on the contrary they say frankly, and this is something that I also speak from my heart; "Hello stranger, I am here, this is my experience, not supplemented, not fake. These are all my insecurities and fears, these are all the triumphs and downs of my experience and knowledge. I'm ready to share all the nasty details of my life. I want to tell you all about my every sensation, pathetic anxiety and distant solitude, social conservatism and false morality, love, vulnerability, enthusiasm, anticipation, eagerness. I feel the pressure in my brain, which results in the need to share my experiences and feelings, asking unconsciously ultimately and primarily empathy, not the applause to my magnificent narcissistic rebellious me. 'Cause empathy as the result of honesty is what makes us human, both small and lost in the pursuit of transcendental. In the end, don’t poets write about their experience, don’t painters paint theirs, and actors take part of themselves so they could enter in a spirit of a certain role? The artist must create and that's why I have to express all my feelings because they will break out, it is a desire stronger than anything. It's like you want to stand in the middle of the main square and scream or go on a mountain and scream or just sit on the tram quietly and suddenly feel the urge to scream. And even if you scream in your own four walls, it is inevitable that someone will hear you and will be pulled into your intimacy, pulled in the same you are doing when you write. This is something just beyond the boundaries of your capabilities and desires. And so unconsciously seeking feedback I want to feel part of a community, I want to find answers, I want proof that my work makes sense because only when you say to another person what's on your soul, only then it becomes reality. I want to tell you that the worst thing is to be realistic with yourself and then to others, how difficult it is to deal with reality and finally tell you that if we only talked about good things, we would lie to each other in the face. So I set before you everything, really everything, because in total this is too much for one heart to bear, because in total it's about almost biological impulse to share my thoughts and experiences in public. "

However,an anonymouscommenterwill stillbe cruel, will greetthis truthbefore the knife,callitrepulsive, dismisssuchwork aswork withliterarystrengthand explainit as a quest forattention.However, does that kind of attitudereally give insight intoone'screativity? And what isin personal andconfessionalwritingthatprovokescriticalknifeaimed at the author, but not atthe authors actual words?Perhaps the answerliesmainlyin the fact thatwe sopanickyfear deepemotions, especially when they comefromsometimesrebellious,hysterical, sadwoman whois notalways what"prettier sex" should be, who dares toleave the boundariesof what isconsidered comfortable and admissible.

sources: 

http://flavorwire.com/466230/why-does-womens-confessional-writing-get-people-so-riled-up?

http://www.therivetermagazine.com/women-and-words-vol-9-i-must-confess/