D.H. Lawrence argues that modern man fails to accept women as real human beings. Women constantly try to adapt themselves to men's theories and ideals of what women should be, which leads to hysteria when no pattern fits. Throughout history, different male types have produced different woman ideals, from the matron to the child-wife to the learned woman. Lawrence says the real tragedy is that while women need a pattern to follow, men provide abominable patterns that reduce women rather than accepting them as full human beings of the feminine sex.
D.H. Lawrence argues that modern man fails to accept women as real human beings. Women constantly try to adapt themselves to men's theories and ideals of what women should be, which leads to hysteria when no pattern fits. Throughout history, different male types have produced different woman ideals, from the matron to the child-wife to the learned woman. Lawrence says the real tragedy is that while women need a pattern to follow, men provide abominable patterns that reduce women rather than accepting them as full human beings of the feminine sex.
D.H. Lawrence argues that modern man fails to accept women as real human beings. Women constantly try to adapt themselves to men's theories and ideals of what women should be, which leads to hysteria when no pattern fits. Throughout history, different male types have produced different woman ideals, from the matron to the child-wife to the learned woman. Lawrence says the real tragedy is that while women need a pattern to follow, men provide abominable patterns that reduce women rather than accepting them as full human beings of the feminine sex.
(English poet, novelist, and essayist D.H. Lawrence wrote frequently--and controversially--about marital and sexual relations. (In 1915, he was prosecuted for obscenity after the publication of his novel The Rainbow.) In "Give Her a Pattern," first published in 1929, he argues that modern man is "a fool" because of his failure to accept a woman as "a real human being.")
The real trouble about women is that they
must always go on trying to adapt themselves to men’s theories of women, as they always have done. When a woman is thoroughly herself, she is being what her type of man wants her to be. When a woman is hysterical it’s because she doesn’t quite know what to be, which pattern to follow, which man’s picture of woman to live up to.
For, of course, just as there are many men in
the world, there are many masculine theories of what women should be. But men run to type, and it is the type, not the individual, that produces the theory, or “ideal” of woman. Those very grasping gentry, the Romans, produced a theory or ideal of the matron, which fitted in very nicely with the Roman property lust. “Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion.” So Caesar’s wife kindly proceeded to be above it, no matter how far below it the Caesar fell. Later gentlemen like Nero produced the “fast” theory of woman, and later ladies were fast enough for everybody. Dante arrived with a chaste and untouched Beatrice, and chaste and untouched Beatrices began to march self-importantly through the centuries. The Renaissance discovered the learned woman, and learned women buzzed mildly into verse and prose. Dickens invented the child-wife, so child-wives have swarmed ever since. He also fished out his version of the chaste Beatrice, a chaste but marriageable Agnes. George Eliot imitated this pattern, and it became confirmed. The noble woman, the pure spouse, the devoted mother took the field, and was simply worked to death. Our own poor mothers were this sort. So we younger men, having been a bit frightened of our noble mothers, tended to revert to the child-wife. We weren’t very inventive. Only the child-wife must be a boyish little thing--that was the new touch we added. Because young men are definitely frightened of the real female. She’s too risky a quantity. She is too untidy, like David’s Dora. No, let her be a boyish little thing, it’s safer. So a boyish little thing she is.
There are, of course, other types. Capable
men produce the capable woman ideal. Doctors produce the capable nurse. Business men produce the capable secretary. And so you get all sorts. You can produce the masculine sense of honour (whatever that highly mysterious quantity may be) in women, if you want to.
There is, also, the eternal secret ideal of
men--the prostitute. Lots of women live up to this idea: just because men want them to.
And so, poor woman, destiny makes away
with her. It isn’t that she hasn’t got a mind--she has. She’s got everything that man has. The only difference is that she asks for a pattern. Give me a pattern to follow! That will always be woman’s cry. Unless of course she has already chosen her pattern quite young, then she will declare she is herself absolutely, and no man’s idea of women has any influence over her.
Now the real tragedy is not that women ask
and must ask for a pattern of womanhood. The tragedy is not, even, that men give them such abominable patterns, child-wives, little-boy-baby-face girls, perfect secretaries, noble spouses, self-sacrificing mothers, pure women who bring forth children in virgin coldness, prostitutes who just make themselves low, to please the men; all the atrocious patterns of womanhood that men have supplied to woman; patterns all perverted from any real natural fulness of a human being. Man is willing to accept woman as an equal, as a man in skirts, as an angel, a devil, a baby-face, a machine, an instrument, a bosom, a womb, a pair of legs, a servant, an encyclopaedia, an ideal or an obscenity; the one thing he won’t accept her as, is a human being, a real human being of the feminine sex. sex