Marilyn Monroe: A Witch
This is the One Where I Excuse Myself from Feminist Arguments
Whatever else you can say about the woman, Marilyn did exactly what she wanted in a time and place where that still raised hackles and kindled ire. During the last remnants of the über-masculine world of 1950s America, she looked at it all and said, “Know what? I’m having none of this. See you in history. I’ll be making it. What will you be doing?”
That is powerful.
I understand it sounds like a feminist statement too. Admiring a woman because she didn’t let an unfair system rule her…that ought to be a feminist idea.
I guess it is, but the reason I’m disqualified from feminist arguments is because of what I follow it up with in my head.
Yeah! She’s like David Bowie!
I think to myself.
Now, I know that some among my readers will be surprised to hear this, but David Bowie is, in fact, a man. He’s not a non-sexual alien. Although he’s damn close to that, in one of the most fabulous ways to ever impact pop music.
Which doesn’t disqualify me from feminist arguments, strictly speaking. David’s ways had similarities to feminism too. Essentially, what David Bowie has in common with feminism is twofold
- First, he demanded fair treatment in the face of silly prejudice — in his case, in defense of “long-haired gentlemen.”
- And, second, he saw the usual ways of society and said, “yeah, not for me, bro. Thanks but, you know, no thanks.”
Both David and Marilyn held a finger up to society and said, sometimes kindly but often less kindly, to get stuffed. I admire them for that.
Something else disqualifies me from feminist arguments. When I gather my thoughts into a pile, I determine this:
What I see Marilyn Monroe and David Bowie have in common is their self-awareness. More than any other thing, they knew who they were.
Society told them how it expected them to behave, and they said, “No thanks. I know me better than you know me.”
Which to me isn’t a feminist idea. It’s nothing so restrictive.
It’s a humanist idea.
Because witches.
The first pyromaniac…
Probably shunned as a witch
(for the record, I am pro-witches)
History is made by groups without power. The so-called “powerless” groups have shaped history. They’ve decided that status quo simply would not do, thank you. If the groups in power had won from the beginning, we’d never have moved out of the caves and learned how to build fires. I’m quite sure that the first pyromaniac would have been shunned as a wizard, but that chick (probably a woman) started everything.
If history has a few unifying threads, one of them is conflict. And a close second unifying thread is the act of oppressed groups unifying under some banner.
I’ve read a bit of history in my day, and if I’ve learned anything I have learned that’s it’s difficult to keep all those banners straight. Three Fleur de lis on a blue flag belongs to a different group than a fish drawn in the dirt, which isn’t the same group as those black arm bands, not under any circumstance to be confused with the red arm bands…. I have trouble keeping up. If I got behind every cause that seems worthy, I’d be festooned (I said it: festooned) so heavily with symbols of support that I couldn’t get up in the morning.
Fortunately, I discovered another common thread. I have trouble keeping the heroes straight, but I discovered a common enemy, conveniently made definite by that annoying tosser Mussolini with his ugly architectural aesthetic.
The enemy: Weaponized ignorance.
Known otherwise as fascism.
In my biased view…
An argument about feminism is the same as an argument about any kind of fascism.
A laboratory perfect example of fascism would look like a group of people (Sneetches) unilaterally agreeing that they are better than some other group (witches). Sneetches don’t need any logic or reasoning to make them think the witches are vile, although it doesn’t hurt. All the Sneetches need is consensus. Sneetches know that witches are bad, and that’s good enough.
Like the Untouchables in India.
I guess I could have used that example.
Well…I didn’t. Sneetches and witches for me.
Some stories from history highlight particular groups of witches as if they’re distinct groups from other groups in history. They’re made of distinct individuals, of course, and they’re facing individuals embodying a larger menace.
The people ought not to be forgotten. But they’re part of a bigger conflict. As I see it, that conflict can be stated simply.
Let’s fight the fascists.
Mussolini vs. Jones
Mussolini probably never figured he was in direct conflict with Margaret Jones of New England, MA. The moment he uttered any variation of the phrase, “My friends are better than yours,” he entered into direct conflict with her. That’s my read on history.
Margaret did midwifery in 1700s New England. She apparently encountered some status quo that didn’t meet with her approval, and she bucked against it. Her neighbors decided they didn’t like her. They arbitrated that she was a witch, and they executed her.
Put simpler, she made them uncomfortable by being different. They condemned her for it.
Shortest version of not only that story but of every other meaningful rebellion that mangled history into the roots of the present.
Commonly, condemnation ain’t had a calming effect on them that see brokenness in the world and feel the need to fix it.
So that seems to have nothing (and everything) to do with feminism
Exactly.
Please forgive me if I do, but I choose to excuse myself from arguments about feminism. And racism. And antisemitism. And gender equality. (Which needs its own ism. Gayism sounds like a bad idea. Where’s the ism?) I shan’t be ignoring any of the issues or arguments. I just find myself having trouble understanding how to join any of them. When I listen to them, I only hear one thing, really:
Status quo sucks. Let’s fix it.
I can get behind that. So I’ll get behind that.
Instead of choosing a group, I shall admire witches, and I shall oppose fascism. Those with better powers of focus can define the issues if they please. I shall support the good and avoid the malicious as well as I can.
How to end, I ask myself…
I seek no impediment to your views. Choose whatever “ism” best suits you. I shall encourage you. The status quo needs uncalming, else we’re forever cavemen. I will also try to disengage from arguments about it. By my silence, I’m doing my best to respect you.
It’s tiring to be forced into a position to perpetually walk gently around every issue out there. I felt like using the word “pussyfoot” just now instead of “walk gently.” I like the sound of pussyfoot, but I decided against it because I felt nervous it would be taken to imply…something. Not even sure what, jus’ that it makes me uncomfy. This is getting under my skin. I don’t like it. It’s quite overwhelming how long the list of “no-go” terms we contend with. It’s meddling in my poetry.
I am a white, American man, of no distinct ethnicity whatever and raised in a middling income family. A North European Mutt, neither familiar with real hunger or the taste of caviar. That seems, by itself, to disqualify me from entering into any argument except as a villain or an ironic supporter without any valid perspective.
And that also feels unfair. I want things to be good. I want to help with the good. Since (even when I understand them) I feel uncomfortable joining the relevant arguments, I shall help in the way I know how.
I shall be having words with Mussolini’s ghost.
p.s.
I seem to be writing a Marilyn Monroe series. Not quite sure how that worked, but there you are.
You can find the first in the series here:
