By Casey Gilfillan

P.I – PEACEKEEPER’S OF PATRIARCHAL MORALITY

P.II – THE MORAL WOMAN AS I HAVE COME TO KNOW HER:

             It becomes clear through examination of the cultural foundation and linguistic structure of the social standards by which we operate, that the American connotation of Morality is tainted with the bias of preference. American Morality is not guided by steadfast principles of ethics, or any true attempt to achieve goodness; it is a code to enforce hierarchy and prey fiercely upon those who would encourage deviation from the misogynistic ramblings of the past. Far too often, morality is imposed upon individuals – specifically female-identifying, presenting, associating, or those embodying femininity in any possible conceivable way – in ways that enable oppressive correction of self-expression rather than pursue any objective notion of virtue.

             To be truthful to this assessment of the viability of the Moral Woman, I must entertain the notion of her existence. What must she achieve, and what must she deny herself in order to be considered moral within the American context?

Be Small (Do Not Burden with Presence)

             The Moral Woman achieves an occupation of space that is minimal. Regarding her own physical space, and the space occupied by the amount and volume of her vocal participation in a social setting, she is to be small. This hyper-awareness of the female self, contrived to a perception of participant presence equating to burdensome and unbecomingly female (immorally female) is a tool of the American context, and a natural consequence of its Christian influences. We are led to believe we should be the skinniest, tiniest, shortest, most petite, size 00 xxs, emaciated, food-deprived version of ourselves that we can be, and this is supported by the popular culture influx of malnourished celebrities. This notion of smallness that is implanted and fostered by those around us is merely a behavioral correction, an expression preference that women maintain a petite and frail figure (preferably one that could be easily dominated by a man). This philosophy helps maintain a strict aesthetic standard, the strictness coming in through the heavily uncomfortable judgement for fat people, a judgement laced with an obvious association with immorality (presupposed negativity, laziness, gluttony). However, it also serves other behavioral standards, such as the hierarchical preference of women to occupy lower and less social rankings, as well as the misogynistic preference that women speak as little as possible and perhaps only when necessary or invited to. We tell women they should be small, tiny, meek, skinny, fragile, but this spatial-perception extends well beyond the physical capacity of mass. This is the culture we have created, and the conditions under which a woman must submit in order to be considered moral.

             As I have briefly discussed, being fat violates morality within the patriarchal code for women; to be fat is to be unconventional to standards of attraction, but more specifically violates the spatial-values clause of the women index in American Morality. Being loud, or talking frequently, gossiping, or, honestly, talking in any quantity or context of which a man would assess to be unsolicited or assertive (i.e., having a disagreement with a man), violates the ability of the woman to achieve moral status. Though I would not offer this up as exemplary of the general public’s mindset, I am going to include an excerpt from a religious blog I found in a superficial search online. I chose to include this because I think it’s funny, but more so because people do truly think this way. Even if they don’t think it as overtly or crudely as the woman who authors The Transformed Wife, there is a subliminal, collective hatred and belittlement that we hold as a culture for women who outwardly express themselves with boldness of existence and being known. The author writes admirably on the plight of men trying to find virtuous women, stating that “not all predators are easily spotted…Such is the case with many other immoral women. They don’t dress provocatively. At first glance they look like modest women – but this is a mere cloak…This brings us to what I would consider the clearest indicator that a woman is a bad candidate for a wife: she is loud” (Alexander). 

             The Moral Woman takes up as little space as possible: physically, emotionally, and conversationally. She wants to brag about how little nutrition, from food and emotional fulfillment, she needs to sustain her stifled survival. A woman too out of behavioral flux cannot abide the appropriate moral requirements, as she is guided by the wild fervor of her pathos and thus distracted from achieving her spatial-virtue goals. Ultimately, a woman who takes up too much space, whether physically or through the volume of her presence, cannot be considered a Moral Woman, as she directly contradicts patriarchal-sanctioned expressions of femininity. And that can’t be good!

Be the Receptacle (Always Be Socially Considerate of the Other)

             The Moral Woman is aware of the need-hierarchy of each social interaction in which she finds herself, for the foundation is unchanging; she would understand – naturally, fluently, organically – that her conversational needs, desires, feelings, and urges come secondary to the Other. The Other is any other person who she is talking to or interacting with in any capacity, whether it be her friend, a stranger, her significant other, her parents, her boss, etc. Whatever the other person has going on in their lives – upcoming events to share, anxieties to bear, feelings to vent, desires to express – should be the focus of the conversation. As with much of the child-rearing process, there is a gender-conditioning element to the way in which we teach our children to converse; girls are taught to inquire, empathize, and extend concern to the other, while boys are encouraged to achieve different goals through conversation. And so, the Moral Woman is one who would not abundantly share and drone on about her own toilings, but would happily and attentively listen to yours, then following up with thorough questions, suggestions, comfort, or whatever response may be applicable. The Moral Woman is a receptacle to receive the ailments and woes of those around her, and does not expect the same courtesy in return.

             The Moral Woman is always socially considerate, courteous to the needs of others even if they violate and directly contradict her own. She comes secondary to the other; this is an objective truth within the current social hierarchy, but the individual woman can achieve moral status by recognizing and complying with this belief. This mentality is supported by the gendered communication styles we observe in the United States; in her book, You Just Don’t Understand, Deborah Tannen states that boys are “taught to…communicate to assert ideas, opinions, and identity…[and] speak in a way that attracts attention to yourself,” while girls are taught to “use communication to create and maintain relationships; involve others…and respond to their ideas; [and] show sensitivity to others and to relationships” (Tannen). Even if approached by a stranger who aggressively pursues and verbally harasses, women are reared in a fashion that her empathetic disposition does not always allow her to react appropriately with regard to her own safety and preference. Rather, she is taught to be kind as a means of not inflicting emotional harm on some audacious, predatory stranger and is only permitted to abandon compassion when her bodily harm is imminent (and often by this point, the appropriate response is enacted too late). The Moral Woman submits to the flawed principles of this philosophy; though she may achieve morality, her mortality will surely be called into risk.

             In order to achieve morality as a woman, you must pursue a specific set of behavior and aesthetic that are deceptively cast as virtues. We are convinced that quaintness, respectfulness as displayed through lack of speech and smallness of presence, and self-deprioritization to the point of sabotage are somehow the qualifying means of goodness – for women only, of course.

Be Mother (Fulfillment Through Caretaking) 

             The Moral Woman is fulfilled through taking care of and tending to the needs of others; she achieves and believes this so intimately, that she even aspires to create more things (life) to take care of. Her focus must not be inward or too heavily focused on personal development – though some is permitted – lest she slack in the empathy-servicing to those in her life, to those who would suckle from her comforting absolvement of distress. This, however, is not a chore or assignment, but an element to her life in which she takes passion; she is gleeful in her role as the homemaker, the mother, the resource to which her family and acquaintances flock for assistance.

             Even if she is not literally a mother – which I will contend is only morally permissible if she is unable to be, for some reason – she is motherly in her mannerisms, and extends such sentiments to those in her life. She is naturally inclined towards caretaking and has a subsequent disposition to child-rearing. The home and family are always priorities, even if she opts for (or needs) a career; immorality ensues when her caretaking nature is neglected in the pursuit of an industrial, business-like nature.

             When a woman is not attuned to these values, she is written off as shrewd, man-hating, mentally unwell, etc., for greater society and moral philosophy believe these to be organic inclinations of her biology. If her brain is not gearing her body to a life where it produces a baby, there is probably something wrong or immoral about her brain. As the current Vice President stated in an interview, “The fact that so many people… just don’t have [kids] in their lives, I worry that it makes people more sociopathic and ultimately our whole country a little less mentally stable…. the people who are the most deranged and the most psychotic are the people who don’t have kids at home” (JD Vance).  While he refers generically to “people” and not women specifically, he went viral for his notorious referral to the Democratic Party as “a bunch of childless cat ladies,” implying an inherent malice and sinister nature in such a lifestyle. This criminalization of being without children is a standard applied harshly and almost exclusively to women, and not even comparable with regard to their male counterparts. When a couple abstains from child-rearing, there must be something wrong with the economy; when a woman alone makes the refusal, there must be something wrong with her.

Conclusion

             The first part of this essay opens with a quote from French existentialist Albert Camus, wherein he states that “a man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world.” I found the quote ironic from an existentialist, considering that Morality is subjective by nature, but I chose to include it because of the wording. Men need these man-made ethical values, faux virtues, and oppressive, arbitrary rules to keep themselves and the rest of society in check. It is not a matter of shepherding society to goodness, but one of retaining power, control, and subjugation over the masses, all to maintain existing power imbalances and hierarchies. It is not the notion of ethics or morality at principle with which I take issue, but the manifestation of such institutions in society that draw out my aversion, for it is clear that the goals are not as proclaimed.

             Discussing morality as a dichotomy of goodness and badness, it is indubitably a behavioral standard. The flaw lies in the application of the behavioral standard, for the ways in which women are taught to behave within ‘goodness’ are as questionable as they are hypocritical and restrictive. This inappropriate use of Morality within the patriarchal context is ultimately the reason as to why the Moral Woman does not exist. Moral women do not exist because they can not exist. Our society does not permit a woman to achieve morality while also autonomously, freely, and expressively being herself, and if the standards by which she must live refute her autonomy, then she cannot exist in the truest sense of the notion. She exists, but with paradox cast over her, and without the viability of authentic person-hood, should she pursue moral status. Gone are the days when concessions are made and partial wins suffice; if she cannot be a free and true version of herself, while also being considered Moral, then the Moral Woman cannot exist. The standard only exists to give them a tool, a ruler upon which they will endlessly undermine you; no matter how ‘good’ you are, they will never see you that way. So I say, be bad! Be selfish and don’t be guilty – loose the beast of yourself upon society and the world.

             Rather than allow a moral philosophy that is underlined by religious psychosis and biological determinism guide your behavior, consider the following excerpt from Mary Oliver’s, “Wild Geese”:

“You do not have to be good. / You do not have to walk on you knees / For a hundred miles through the desert repenting. / You only have to let the soft animal of your body / Love what it loves” (Oliver, 1-5).