Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
This poem by William Henley is Nelson Mandela's favourite. It is said to have been the inspirational words that kept him going whilst he was incarcerated on Robben Island prison off the coast of Cape Town for 27 years.
It is entitled 'Invictus', which is also the name of the film by Clint Eastwood on Nelson Mandela's involvement in the Rugby World Cup win by a united South Africa in 1995.
Captain of my soul.
A man who has his ducks lined up is noticeable by everyone around him.
He really seems to be the captain of his own soul.
I attempted to describe this phenomenon in this post. It seems to be the essence of (complete) manhood.
But... of course there must be a female equivalent of this.
But what I am trying to work out is, is this woman the same as this man, i.e. captain of her soul, mistress of her fate...
Or is she in fact, the opposite?
Because whilst the captain of his soul is quintessentially masculine, his female counterpart has to be feminine, no?
Can a woman be concurrently feminine and be 'captain of her soul'?
It is not a trick question.
Masculinity is all about mastering what is controllable. A task that has a beginning a middle and an end. Beyond that, he is not interested.
I am not saying that controllable equals easy. Far from it.
But controllable is defined by logical laws.
For example, if you study hard, you will usually get good grades. There is the odd chance that on the day of your test, you will skid on a banana skin and end up in hospital with a broken coccyx and miss the exam altogether, but this would be unusual and unlucky.
Femininity is all about what is uncertain and undefinable. Attempting to reach what is not controllable.
In many ways, a woman is more at the mercy of fate than a man.
It is arguably easier to pass a test or hold down a job than to navigate certain tasks of womanhood.
In relationship land, and I am referring here to the wider realm of interhuman relationships, not just romantic ones, there are two distinct ways of keeping people who lock horns frequently from killing each other.
There is 'peace keeping' and there is 'creating harmony'.
In most families, especially large families, the job of 'keeping the peace' usually falls to a man. According to what I have observed (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) it is kind of like a 'policeman' or 'referee' type role. This intervention is usually short, sharp and to the point. The terms of negotiation and or reconciliation are usually laid unceremoniously on a table. The warring parties can either take it or leave it.
The task of 'creating harmony' is arguably more draining. This task usually falls to a woman. She may not be the most 'senior' woman in the household. In fact, the Matriarch could well be one of the warring parties. Harmony Hannah could be a daughter, daughter-in-law, sister...any woman.
This woman will not be content with laying out abstract terms on a proverbial table. She will go backwards and forwards several times between the parties, individually and together, delving into the depths of their feelings and emotions. She will leave no stone unturned.
These are generalisations, of course, but it describes fairly accurately, the modus operandi of both sexes.
This is why I think 'outcome independence' is much harder for a woman than it is for a man (although it is very useful if a woman can master this somehow).
Peter Peacekeeper will consider it 'mission accomplished' if he can get two warring parties together in one room and lay out his plan for reconciliation for both of them. I think he will really see it as 'job done.' He can walk away with his head held high. He has done the controllable part. Now it's time for a drink.
Hannah Harmony's work is not yet finished, at least not in her eyes. Until the two parties are hugging each other, calling each other by terms of endearment and going on each other's Christmas card lists, she ain't finished.
'Outcome independence' does not come easy to women.
But perhaps there is a good reason for this which Nature should be given credit for?
Can a woman really be 'captain of her own soul' given that she seeks to 'control' that which is often uncontrollable?
I have noticed that you can only really have control if you let go of control. Yet another paradox.
Maybe the 'kings of cool' are only so 'in control' because they let go years ago.
And the rest of us still clinging desperately to every little bit of control we can muster in our lives are looking at them and wondering, 'How does he do that?'
So, can a woman 'let go' like men can do?
Won't that make us all...well, men?
Should a woman even seek to be captain of her own soul?
What will happen if she does?
Will that take something away from her femininity?
I think whoever came up with 'Man proposes, God disposes' had women in mind. It is especially true of a woman's life.
Women are usually the ones who have to uproot themselves to follow a man's dream.
Yes, this dynamic is often reversed in our modern world, but does this usually end happily? I would venture a short answer: no.
A man can really plan his life to the finest detail. It is technically possible. A woman who remains 'feminine' usually cannot.
Beyond marriage, a woman's life is 'not her own' once she has children. Sometimes quite literally. More so than for a man, who could walk away, and some do.
Yes, there are some women who do walk away from their (small) children too, but I think we would all agree that this is in the minority, albeit seemingly rising in number.
When I said 'quite literally' above, I had a specific case in mind.
I was thinking of St. Gianna Molla. She is a modern era saint. Born in 1922, she became a paediatrician in 1949. I would probably guess there weren't too many of her colleagues that were female in Italy in 1949. Married to an engineer, she was pregnant with her fourth child when gynaecological complications arose necessitating a choice between an abortion, hysterectomy or an attempt to solve the gynaecological problem with high risk to both mother and baby.
She chose the latter. Even though her faith would not have precluded a hysterectomy even if an unintended consequence of that would have been the automatic death of her baby.
St. Gianna Molla had the baby - a girl, also called Gianna - but died a week later. She is thus the patron saint of mothers, physicians and the unborn.
2 questions: I know what the Catholic church thinks of her actions - she was afterall canonised in 2004 - and The Church will not canonise just anybody. She was canonised because she gave her life for another that was dependent on her. Gianna Jr. also became a doctor by the way :-)
Is this a case of 'no-one will sweeten the bitter pill for me'? A hysterectomy would have been 'acceptable' in the eyes of The Church. But Gianna Sr. was having none of it. Save the baby at all cost.
Or is this a case of child before husband - which is a recipe for disaster in its own right? Did St. Gianna Molla put her unborn child before her husband and all the rest of her children because that last child literally depended on her for its life - whereas husband and older kids did not have this dire dependency on her - and is this what The Church admires about her?
'Letting go' in this way and submitting to fate can sometimes make a woman very vulnerable. If she 'chooses wrong' she can end up in a place she never bargained for.
In the case of St. Gianna Molla, she believed she chose 'right' and the Church agrees.
So, even though she died, she was a winner.
But some (most?) may not agree that death is a win.
Or any other suffering for that matter.
Some women who have 'been there' because of a man want to make sure their daughter never 'goes there'.
Hence the advice 'never ever be in a position to need a man. Kill your own darn snake'.
But is this really good advice? Really?
I don't know.
Anyone shedding some credible light on this for me will be highly regarded.
Should a woman accept this vulnerability? Because it is inseparable from true femininity?
Is this the 'curse of Eve' that all women are born with and start trying to shed like from birth?
:-)
Should ST be shot for even bringing up this topic?
:-)
Although I am myself a woman, I can't help feeling that not only have I entered a room I should not, I have opened the female locker room to all and sundry.
But I feel compelled to ask this question. I feel I cannot take another step in life unless I have an answer to this question. It is that important.
Any other woman feel the need to explore this?
I really hope I am not the only one.
