Today was awesome. Again. And it's only 3:30.
Part of the awesomeness: Plainsong by Kent Haruf. Have you guys read this yet? How did I miss it? It was a National Book Award finalist and is just good. Deep down to the bones good. I have no words.
Relatedly: I've been thinking about competence lately. For a second I was claiming that I love me a competent man, but really I am attracted to the ungendered trait. I started thinking about it in terms of Cormac McCarthy (I will have new classes in the fall and will stop harping on Mr. McCarthy I promise)--his protagonists are all great with their hands. They can fix things and make things and calm horses and do whatever, really, is necessary. So much so that I started wondering about competence and maleness...for reasons unimportant here I feel a lot of pressure to be competent, but I wonder if that's something that we expect more of boys? A sort of defining social pressure?
The idea also come into play with my dad: he's sort of ridiculously competent. He can lay sod and refinish floor and choose good pastry and good restaurants and run businesses and he knows his way around the world...and I don't think this is just weird Freudian hero worship either: my dad is not competent at many important emotional things--I don't suspect he's perfect--it's just that he's good at everything else.
And competence is weird--can we really expect a person to be good at everything? And it's more knowing basic skills, right, and how to use them, or knowing how to learn things. It's more of an attitude than a personality trait?
And it seems like valuing competence is a little dangerous. I lose patience with people who fumble really quickly, which is ironic because I'm clumsy and silly and incompetent-seeming all the time. And I think valuing competence so highly kind of sets me up for that: I'm easily flustered if I make a mistake because I expect perfection. Or something.
Anyway. Plainsong is a about life (lives) in small town Colorado. The men are ranchers/farmers--quietly (undeniably) competent. One of the subplots, too, revolves around a woman coming to know herself--coming to trust herself and attain a very typically feminine brand of competence ("I have Maggie Jones here and she thinks you're right.")
Yeah, and this is where it all comes together, I mean, the feminine (emotional/social) competence in the book is embodied by women who aren't afraid to look reality in the eye and who don't despair over life despite that. They know what needs to be done and why. The men, too, have about them that sort of calm. They can look a problem up and down and figure it out. For Guthrie and the McPheron's it's more a matter of, like, around the farm kind of stuff...I'm rambling. Competence is an attitude born of careful thinking and past success. If you tackle a project thoughtfully and thoroughly, if you've practiced, you're bound to do well. The attitude is as important as the skill...And if you assume competence in those around you they're more likely to succeed? In whatever endeavor you're pursuing.
Anyway. The book was lovely.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Summer Part 2/Book Recommendation
Posted by Kjerstin Evans Ballard at 2:23 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
1. Seconded on Plainsong.
2. Seconded on competence; my boyfriend is one of those "can do anything" fellows, and, boy, I didn't know the meaning of the word "hot" until I watched him do my taxes/wire a house for phone service/sail a boat. Phew.
3. Have you read/heard of Fascinating Womanhood? Because this blogversation, as it were, is starting to remind me of certain passages. Ick.
Like the part where you're supposed to pretend to be incompetent and let your husband come and clean up the mess?
But does it follow that competent men would find ineptitude attractive?
I think we expect more handsy competence from boys. They're supposed to be able to do stuff. Female competence, however, is a lot more intangible (they need to know how to comfort, say, or to intuit needs and so on). So, it's easier, I think for boys to fail on this front, since their tasks are visible.
I wonder, though, if competence-desire is a gendered thing. I know I'm not the paragon of manliness (and my total lack of competence might explain this), but competence isn't something I find inherently attractive. Part of me does like being the provider/rescuer, but it's not that I find incompetence alluring, either.
I think it's more that being able to do things well is much, much less important to me in a potential partner than the ability to be things well.
this is funny because i kept hoping youd update and then you did, and i was thinking about this same thing today because we went into lowes and a worker named kc taught my husband and i how to wire a weed wacker, and i thought it was sexy.
i think competence is sometimes so attractive it is dangerous. like ive dated boys, and so have my sisters and friends, that are so competent i start to rely on them to fix everything, and even though i have this great super hero to call anytime something goes awry and i should be deliriously happy, it starts making me less and less competent and unable to fix my own problems. and somewhere down the line i lose my self esteem. somewhere along the way i realized that my attraction to competence might be a negative thing, the manifestation of my inner desire to never grow up and always have someone make things all better? does that make any sense?
im not saying competence is always bad. i love me a competent man. but i guess now im trying to work on becoming competent myself. long comment.
Such interesting stuff here.
Alea: I think we should discuss "being things well" some. You've mentioned it before and the idea is attractive and a little terrifying (you said once that it matters less what we believe that what we are, which is true and carries all sorts of implications with which I'm not entirely comfortable).
Shannon: totally. Like I want someone who know his way around a checkbook, but really I should just learn my way around a checkbook, right?
Also. I've noticed that though I dig competence in men, and I do things to encourage the display of it, I start to resent it after a little while. That is, I go after men who know a lot of stuff, and I like to pick their brains, and am pretty good at bringing out their expertise, but if the favor isn't returned (or they start to assume I don't know as much as they do, or don't ask for my opinion) I get really turned off really fast. I like competence, but it's got to be a 2-part thing. (There's more here too...)
If we listen to FW, yes, said competent men are attracted to incompetence, as long as it's done in a childlike, pretty way.
But definitely, definitely, forthosthatdon't wantto live lifeby FW(whichI wish were everyone), awarenessofcompetence hasto go both ways. Though reallywhatwe're talking about is respect, Ithink--Irespectpeople who have taken the timetoeducate themselves about practicalmatters,perhaps evenmorethanthosewith an impracticaleducation,ifonlybecausesaid practicalcompetenceis sodifferent from me.
Also, apologies, but the spcebaronthisinternet cafecomputeris actingallwonky andI'm toolazy to go back and fix my comment.
Petra: Doesn't FW maybe just take the natural to extremes (in the sense that women find competence a good thing and men like to be the knight)? And suggest faking incompetence in order to lure someone in? I'm not saying it's good or right, just maybe that it's not completely off the mark.
ke: For me, doing things is really just a matter of learning and experience, which anyone can do. It's being and becoming that we all seem to fail so miserably at. For instance, if I really cared, I could learn to fix cars. I'm not so sure that I could be friendlier, though. Of course, this does raise all sorts of questions if, like me, you believe in a partially uncreated, unconscious personality.
And, it's terrifying, because it's all internal and pretty easily faked at first blush and you probably don't know what someone is until it's too late and you're already attached.
Maybe I'm out of line, and I know I don't post here or read here much, but does anyone else get antsy when they meet someone who can and does do everything? I don’t mean insecure. The mentality of always going and never having time to be isn't attractive to me. I’ve found that Type-A becomes a major problem for relationships when a person defines others or himself by competence alone. Would you fall for a guy if he was one of the best writers in the world and an ass? The yes is what got women into marriages with Hemmingway. Isn’t competence relative to how competent the one judging competence is? We all just want to end up with our equals, someone we can grow with, right? I want someone to become with, not someone to take care of me. Ugh, that sound horribly new feminist. I hope this made sense. I’m also so happy you got into BYU. They love you over in that English Dept!
Ha! I spelled Hemingway wrong.
Michelle--
Yeah, being taken care of is kind of creepy (in ways one of the advantages of being married--he helps you out, you help him out, it's mutually beneficial, but I'm not looking for a dad). I just like someone who knows how to do things. It's not the only thing (good call on the Hemingway wives parallel) certainly, but I'm attracted to people who take the time to get good at stuff? And it's not a matter of type-A at all--some of the most mellow people I know are some of the most competent.
?
I guess I always thought A Types were the stress addicts more likely to go into cardiac arrest. I wouldn't want any of my friends or ex's (all of which have been smart and cool) to be offended by my last comment.
Some thoughts:
1) I think I define competence rather differently than you have. Rather than the ability to do a vast variety of things well, I think of it as the ability to do the things well that one needs to do in order to accomplish one's specific goals. Most people have multiple major goals they are working towards, and most major goals require a variety of different skills, so perhaps this distinction is semantic. . . but it seems important to me. I guess what it comes down to is that a major component of competence is direction.
2) Desiring a partner to be incompetent can not possibly indicate real love. If you really care about someone, you're not going to lie to yourself about the fact that you will not always be there for them; no matter how competent you are, you will not always have the option of being their knight in shining armor. To encourage a strong partner/weak partner dynamic is narcissistic, and indicates a less than genuine concern for the other person's well being.
3) I think one of the reasons I'm so attracted to competence is that I am quite competent myself, and have no romantic interest in spending vast amounts of time rescuing someone who is unable to reciprocate. I also find myself disturbed by men who are looking for someone to save. . . it seems that as fun as it might be, the dishonesty of the exercise makes it an incredibly, inherently wasteful and unhealthy basis for a relationship.
Post a Comment