In his recently published book, Kayak Morning, Roger Rosenblatt writes:
The literature involving fathers and daughters runs to nearly one thousand titles. I Googled. The Tempest. King Lear. Emma. The Mayor of Casterbridge. Washington Square. Daughters have a power over fathers, who are usually portrayed as aloof or mad. The father depends on his daughter and he is often isolated with her–the two of them partnered against the world. It is a good choice for writers, this pairing. It may be the ideal male-female relationship in that, with romance out of the picture, the idea of father and daughter has only to do with feelings and thoughts. Unalloyed. Intelligent. A girl may speak the truth to her father, who may speak the truth to her. He anchors her. She anchors him.
Rosenblatt’s book explores his grief at the untimely death of his own daughter, Amy, and this passage, in the form of a short-hand literary analysis, mourns the relationship he had with her–a relationship that, for him, was about a kind of truth-telling that happens between men and women when the possibility of romance does not exist. Rosenblatt’s grief is his own, and I would not presume to suggest that his relationship with his daughter was anything other than what he says it was. His assertion, however, that the father-daughter pairing is a “good choice for writers” because it allows us to deal with issues between the sexes solely in terms of feelings and thoughts, without the messiness of romance, gave me serious pause. It’s not that I think he has mischaracterized the father-daughter relationships in the works that he cites–it’s been long enough since I read any of them that I simply do not remember–but because, in a male dominant culture, and we still live in such a culture whether we like it or not, the father-daughter relationship is never about feelings and thoughts in the abstract. The daughter’s body and how she uses it–in sex, in marriage–and how that use reflects on the father’s body as a man, and on his reputation and the reputation of his family, is always already contested ground.
I doubt most people in the United States see the father-daughter relationship explicitly in these terms any more, though there are subcultures here–think, also, the Christian institution of purity balls–where it is still a father’s duty to manage his daughter’s sexuality until she is appropriately married. In my own life, where fathers have been conspicuously absent, these attitudes have manifested themselves most obviously in the assumptions people make about my relationship with my sisters. Or, more specifically, about what my relationship with my sisters should have been when we were younger. I am thinking specifically of how most people react when I tell them about the time when I was twenty-two and I walked in on my sister, who is six years younger than I am and who should have been in school, in flagrante delicto with her boyfriend. A fully detailed telling of the story is for another time, because it is funny. For now, but suffice it to say that when I finally found the boyfriend, he was hiding in my sister’s closet trying desperately to disappear behind the shirts and other hanging clothes he was pulling around himself. It was very hard not to laugh at him, but I didn’t. I just sent him home, and I will never forget the look of surprised relief and gratitude on his face when he realized that I was not going to beat him up. He even asked me, “You mean you’re not going to beat me up?” When I said no, he said thank you and left.
Most people to whom I have told this story, and it doesn’t seem to matter how old or young they are, have been as surprised as he was that I did not beat him up; and when I have asked them why–since the idea of beating him up never even occurred to me–they always give the same answer. “She was your little sister,” they say. “It was your job to protect her.”
When I ask them what they think she needed protection from, they tell me, “From guys like that.” And when I ask them why I should have assumed my sister’s boyfriend was “like that,” since he was a nice guy whom she’d been seeing for a while, a guy I liked, a guy she clearly trusted, they tell me, “Okay, so maybe you didn’t have to beat him up, but you should at least have put the fear of God into him, just to keep him honest.”
Honest about what? I ask.
“Well,” they say, “you wouldn’t want your sister to get a reputation, would you? You wouldn’t want him, or anyone he told, to think your sister was just giving it away, right?” And then most, but not all, leave the next question unasked: “You wouldn’t want your sister to think it was okay just to give it away, would you?”
Clearly, it was not her boyfriend from whom my sister and her reputation really needed protection.
But there you have it: Because I was her older brother, these people seem to think my sister’s emerging sexuality was my problem, not out of concern for her health and safety–and even then it really wouldn’t have been my problem–but because if I did not keep a watchful eye on her she might have acquired the reputation of or, worse, actually become a “slut.” According to this logic, my responsibility towards my sister is really not so different from the responsibility felt by the fathers and brothers who murder their daughters and sisters in so-called “honor killings”–and, just to be clear, there is nothing honorable about them–because even the hint of female sexual impropriety is a stain on her and her family’s reputation that only her death will remove. (Indeed, I am reminded of the doll I was given buy a lover so that I would remember her when I left South Korea in 1989, after my stint as an English teacher was over. The doll’s dress identified her as a Korean noblewoman, right down to the knife on a belt around her waist, that her real life counterpart was supposed to have used to commit suicide in the event that she was raped.) Granted, no one has ever suggested that in my case the right course of action would have been to kill my sister, but the idea that I should have beaten her boyfriend up is clearly as much about the message it would have sent to her about the need to “keep her legs closed” as it is about the belief that I should have let him know that keeping his life was contingent on his ability to “keep it in his pants.”
A less violent way for me to have gotten this message across to my sister, of course, would have been for me to explain to her that I knew “what guys are like” and that she, therefore, had good reason not to trust her boyfriend’s motives for wanting to be sexual with her, that, in fact, she shouldn’t trust them because, at heart, all guys are “like that.” Leave aside, for the moment, the fact that there really are guys who are “like that” and that it is possible for an older brother to sniff this out about his younger sister’s boyfriend before his younger sister does. Focus instead on where the authority comes from that I, in this script, expect my sister to recognize and accept: the fact that I, too, am a guy, that I know, first-hand, the truth of what I am saying. More to the point, since being “like that” is, in this way of seeing the world, in the very nature of guyhood, being “like that” is part of whom I am too. In protecting my sister from her boyfriend, in other words, I am also protecting her from another version of myself. Or, to put it perhaps more kindly, from a male imperative that I know her boyfriend feels because I have felt it too: the (traditional) male imperative to use women for sex as a way of proving manhood.
There is, in other words, a level of self-hatred involved in the violence I was, according to this logic, supposed to have done to my sister’s boyfriend, as I projected onto him the part of who I am that I would never allow myself to express with my sister. Moreover, there is an irony embedded in this self-hatred, because not to feel it, not to see someone like my sister’s boyfriend as a threat to her, and therefore to myself, is to fail as a man. By way of contrast, consider that if I’d been an older sister, and strong enough to do so, no one would have thought for a moment that beating my younger sister’s boyfriend up simply because he was having sex with her was the thing I ought to have done. As a woman, it simply would not have been my job to police my sister’s sex. As a man, however, within this logic, that was precisely my job and, to the degree that I didn’t do it, it was as a man that I failed. The people who question why I didn’t beat him up know this intuitively. “What kind of a brother (read: man) were you?” they ask. In all honesty, I don’t know how to answer them, not because I don’t have an answer, but because it often feels to me like we are speaking different languages and I don’t know how to translate from mine to theirs.
A great deal of work has been done to expose the sexual double standard for what it is, a way of controlling women’s sexuality, and if you understand the story I have told and people’s reaction to it as being primarily about my relationship with my sister, then it is clearly the double standard that is at stake. On the other hand, if you understand the story as being about my relationship to her boyfriend–man to man, so to speak–which means it is also a story about my relationship with myself, then what is at stake is how that double standard structures men’s internal experience of manhood and masculinity, how it forces on men a division within ourselves between the man we are (traditionally, stereotypically) given permission to be with women who are not our sisters or daughters, etc. and the man whose manhood depends on protecting those women from what that permission means. To be both those men at the same time, in an integrated way, seems to me impossible, making it a quintessential example of self-hatred.
I don’t really have anything more to say about this right now. I just think it’s a starting point for what could be a very interesting discussion.
Cross-posted on It’s All Connected.
As a woman, it simply would not have been my job to police my sister’s sex.
Older women DO police the sex lives of younger women, and see this as part of their jobs as women. I’m surprised so much of this work is invisible to men. Women are less likely to use physical violence (women are generally discouraged from using physical violence), but you know verbal attacks and social pressure can be effective forms of policing. It looks like your community had much stronger expectations that you should frighten or shame the young man than that you should hit him.
I don’t mean to say that all women police the sex lives and gender presentations of their daughters and sisters and friends. Some resist the social pressure to do it. As far as I can tell, the patriarchy is so pervasive ignoring it doesn’t really work–it takes deliberate pushback. A lot of feminists are trying to push back against patriarchy, and some push back against this particular aspect of it (others don’t. Nobody has enough energy to do everything they want, and resisting the pressure to slut-shame is harder and scarier for some women than others.)
When women slut-shame other women, there is often an aspect of self-hatred like you describe feeling. “Projecting onto someone else that part of what you are that you would never allow yourself to express.” It’s obvious that your community thought the young man committed some sexual offense that you had some responsibility to punish. It’s not clear to me just what that sexual offense WAS. You don’t seem to be writing about rapist-shaming. Is it cad-shaming?
Adrian:
You’re right. I wrote carelessly. My point was to emphasize that it would not have been seen as an older sister’s job to beat the boyfriend up, not that women don’t collude in controlling other women’s sexuality.
I don’t think society viewed the young man as having committed any sort of offense. This kind of behaviour isn’t about shaming – being beaten up by a male relative playing the role of protector is a badge of honour, not of shame.
This behaviour is all about the patriarchal view that women are the property of men. As the perceived male in charge, Richard had to protect what was his from the usurping younger male. The fact that most of his interlocutors thought he should beat up, or at least intimidate, the man even once it was clear that he was not actually bothered by the sexual relationship indicates this – this was not about the sister’s “honour” anymore, it was about Richard making clear to the man that he (the man) gets sexual access to Richard’s sister only at Richard’s indulgence.
This is yet another aspect of the double standard – it’s not just about shame versus reward. It’s about the fact that a young man may decide to have sex whenever he pleases, while a young woman may decide to have sex only if the male authority figures in her life allow her to.
That’s the line that jumped out at me, too. She wouldn’t have been expected to beat him up, but she would have been expected to lecture her sister on not having sex afterward. She would have been expected to be angry.
It’s just not her place to directly challenge a man like that.
I wonder to what extent this has changed over the course of the generation (almost) that divides us or to what extent I simply grew up in an anomalous family. I could not imagine either my father or my brother policing me in this way or even thinking they should.
My parents and brothers wouldn’t have policed me like that either, but the expectation still, currently exists as far as I can see.
Chingona:
I thought about whether things have changed since the time the story with sister happened, which was about 30 years ago at this point, and I certainly hope things have, but what I find interesting is that when I tell people even today, even people as young as my students, a large enough number of men and women that it sticks out to me seem to think I should have beaten my sister’s boyfriend up.
Out of honest curiosity:
Why did you send the young man home?
My viewpoint is that 16 years old is too young to be having sex and that it’s legitimate for any older sibling, male or female, to break it up. Whether said older sibling should have gotten physical with the young man would be a function of the relative sizes, etc., but I see no need to beat him up unless he resisted leaving of his own free will.
When my daughter was about that age I told her that I expected her to graduate high school as a virgin but I had no illusions that she would graduate college as one. That’s how it worked out, too.
Pingback: QUICKIES 04/16/2012 - Queereka
Robert,
That had more to do with the fact that my sister was playing hooky and that there was a rule in the house that no one, including me, was supposed to have guests when my mother wasn’t there or if my mother had not been informed.
More to do, or entirely to do? If your sister had a platonic friend over and you found them playing an unauthorized game of Scrabble, would you have sent the person home? What if your sister had found you in flagrante delicto or playing cards?
Robert,
More to do. The platonic friend? Yup. I’d have sent him, or her, home. Especially if my sister was playing hooky. What if she had caught me? That will take more time to answer than I have to type out on my phone right now.
RonF:
Out of curiosity: How do you know? How is it that you think you know?
Grace
What strikes me here is your rationalization about interrupting the activity and sending him home at all. You couch this as acting in loco parentis and enforcing the house rules. But really, you were interfering in your sister’s sex life without the role of parent. You were essentially doing exactly what society expected you to do without the punching.
Your sister’s skipping school and having someone in the house when no parents were home was between her and your parents. But you chose to play the big brother in charge of his sister’s sexuality and hunt down the offending male. Yeah, you beat him up, just not inflicting any bodily harm. And you controlled your sister, who apparently played into the patriarchal power structure and LET you throw him out.
My 25 year old son automatically thinks all boys who go after his teenage sister are morally and intellectually suspect (the term “loser” is usually applied), but he knows that he is reacting to a deep-seated male protector role and knows where to draw the line. He would never haul one of her boyfriends out of her bed.
P Wik,
I am not going to give more details of this story here, because it gets into family history that I don’t want to reveal. I will say three things: you don’t know, because I did not put it in the post, what my conversation was with my sister and her boyfriend before I sent him home–and this is not something I am going to talk about here; you don’t know enough to know that I had no business acting “en loco parentis;” and I most certainly did not haul my sister’s boyfriend out of her bed.
That said, I think you are right that the story as I have told it can be read as you have read it. Thank you. That is something I need to take into consideration if I ever decide to use this story in a full-blown essay.
Seriously? I think that’s an amazingly inappropriate position to put an older sibling in. Siblings aren’t parents. What right, exactly, does anyone have to commit assault (if necessary) in order to stop someone from having consensual sex? (If your sibling is being raped, then violence may be absolutely called for.) Sixteen is, after all, above the age of consent in most states, assuming the other person is the same age or close to it.
I don’t want to de-agentify young people, but there are people who think they are consenting but are in fact not yet really able to do so.
Nobody has a right to assault, but I do see a family (and peer) role in policing consent; “Jenny, do you really know this boy? Is this something you both want. or something he wants and has persuaded you into? Do you trust him?” etc.
AFAIK the age of consent in most states is 17 or 18. There sre so-called Romeo andJuliet
clauses for near-age teens, but they don’t lower the age of consent, they just waive statutory rape provisions so that dumb teenagers don’t go to jail for statutory rape that wasn’t rape-rape. The teenagers are not considered able to fully consent, and they can’t have legal sex with an adult.
I agreed with the comment that siblings aren’t parents and that a sibling should not be put into that situation. But the point on women’s sexuality and how it is always trying to be controlled is a good one, Even though I agree that there are some ages where women/ young women should not be having sex, I do feel that a person’s sexuality should be controlled by them and not others. But I also think that siblings do try to have a say in the sexuality of younger sibling but I think that they are just looking out from them.
Robert:
Some, yes. Most, no.
And what on earth are you doing up at this hour, when all decent folk are abed?
Grace
Grace – Thanks for the info. Whatever gave you the idea I was decent folk?
One additional thought. I have two daughters and -jokes about shovels and pre-dug burial plots aside – I don’t plan on policing their sexual lives beyond teaching them about the risks (and joys) and the other parental info provision that is part of my job.
At the same time I want them to be able, to feel able, to come to me or other people in their trudt network when they WANT policing, or something akin to it. When they’re not sure, when they want to talk and get counsel, and especially if they feel threatened or endangered, we ought not feel awkward or overly deferential about being there when asked, or even proactively taking initiative to be there if that fits in the relationship.
Pwik, I think you are way out of line here. Are you seriously suggesting that minor children ought to to be free to do whatever they want in defiance of parental authority while living as dependents in their parent’s home? Do you really suggest that older siblings are obligated to abet them? What if the situation were reversed and it were an older sister catching a younger brother? What if it weren’t a sexual situation? Would you still argue that the older sibling had no obligation to act in the interest of their parent or parents?
I know nothing of your family background but as the youngest of four I can tell you that my older siblings were expected to follow the rules and to see to it that I followed them as well. We were definitely not expected to collude in breaking them. This practice carried over to my sibling’s children as well. When one of my nephews caught his younger brother “en flagrante” he acted precisely as Richard did.
Given your hostile and accusatory tone, I’m curious; would you have taken the same attitude if it had been the mother who had discovered the tryst?
I didn’t agree with or approve of everything Ron wrote, but in his defense, if you think sex is a pretty bad thing that it’s really important that teenagers not do, it’s not that unreasonable to expect siblings to stop said bad thing if they happen upon it. It’s not in loco parentis so much as looking out for your siblings. Rather than switch up the genders, substitute some other bad thing, like drugs or stealing car stereos or whatever.
Unreasonable in the mind of the parent, anyway. Both my brother and I did our share of “bad” stuff – sex stuff*, drug stuff, sneaking around and not being where we were supposed to be stuff – and neither would have ever told on the other, not because we didn’t care about each other, but because why would you tell and then the other person just tells on you and you’re both in trouble. Also, we didn’t think what we were doing was really that bad. Our subsequent lives would seem to bear that out. We’re both fine, upstanding, taxpaying productive members of society. But if one of us had gotten hurt and the other one could have prevented it by speaking up? We would have felt bad and our parents would have been disappointed in us. That’s kind of the tricky thing. Most kids do dumb/immature stuff, and most of them are fine, but occasionally they’re not.
Re: the legal age of consent, what’s interesting is that many states allow people – children – to marry with parental permission at ages younger than their legal age of consent, and statutory rape doesn’t apply between married people. I think this is relevant to the post in so much as we like to dress up this question as one of agency, emotional/psychological maturity, etc., but there is still a certain amount of old-fashioned propriety and control in the law.
Maybe it’s me but this story seems to be out of a 1800s novel in the UK, from a noble house about to lose political power, or their influence as nobles (and thus following norms to calm the game).
This is sooo alien to me that someone would be expected to police like that. Protect against violence, insults…but against sex? Can’t see it. Maybe I’m too young (I’m 29) or too secular (I’m agnostic and no one would ever care in people near me what my religious affiliation is).
The only thing I recognize is the “Intimidate this guy, because he’s a guy and you’re a guy”. Been a victim of such status-attaining power plays before. Nothing about controlling others. It’s a grab for social power from people who aren’t at the top of the hierarchy (because people at the top can sit on their laurels, no need to prove themselves), against someone who is considered weaker or unlikely to retaliate, yet a worthy (your age) and valid (male) target.
I’m sure this exists between women and girls too, just not with fists.