2321 Holding Hands

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

You know how some things just are the way they are, and you don't think about them? And sometimes if you do think about them, they expose you as a hypocrite, so you don't want to think about them?

I saw three instances of hand-holding today, and one of them annoyed me, and I hate to admit why.

The one that annoyed me was the first. It was a starlet and her celebrity date. She was a bit more famous than he. She was also much taller than he, like by two feet. (He was a "Little Person.**") The interviewer addressed most of the questions to her.

Something about them really bothered me. It looked vaguely to me like she and the interviewer, but mostly she, were treating her date like a child, or a lesser being. It look like he felt that way, too. He kept glancing away, rubbing the back of his head.

The second photo was a bride and groom holding hands, and his wrist was to the front. That's when I realized what it was that bothered me about the first couple. The first couple were holding hands, and her wrist was in front of his. That's what felt wrong. I wonder, if his wrist were in front, would the interviewer have paid more attention to him?

The third was a slightly older sister with her toddler brother, and her wrist was to the front. That was ok with me, and that's when I realized I should be ashamed of myself.

Wrist to the front indicates the leader, the decision maker, the protector, dominance. Wrist to the back indicates the follower, infantilization, passivity, subservience.

Isn't that odd?

Beyond the fact that we read it that way, even if it really does indicate what the relationship is, every couple, whether dating or siblings, should be able to define their relationship any way they want. I don't have a right to approve or disapprove.

I am annoyed with myself that a.) I interpret the wrist position that way, b.) that I expect the female half of a heterosexual couple to be the submissive one, and c.) it bugs me when she's not!

----------------------

I select men who are bigger, faster, stronger, and smarter than I. I select that way because I want to be submissive in public, I think that is a huge compliment to a man, so I need a man I can trust to handle things without needing my approval. At home, in private, in major decisions, in the relationship, I expect equal participation.

So I always have my wrist to the back when we hold hands. If we're sitting at a table, I'll slip my hand under his rather than touch the top. It's just automatic.

I have noticed that when dealing with clerks, sales people, anyone else, really, male or female, if I am holding hands with a man, and my wrist is behind, they address all questions and comments to the man. I don't exist. If I want to be heard, I have to not only release the hand, but step aside and keep both hands visible.

If my wrist is in front (and that often was the case during Jay's illness) it actually confuses people. They're not sure who's in charge.

--------------------------

**
Re: "Little People". Ok. You can choose what you want to be called. I guess I can understand not wanting to be called a dwarf, or a midget, since those are labels that get misused and perhaps have carnival connotations, and don't always apply anyway, and even the medical terms don't always apply (although I don't see that any terms are any more limiting than "Black", or "Presbyterian", or "blond", they're all simply descriptive). So I can see why you want your own non-emotional, non-negative, group defining label.

But I don't understand why "little people". "Short" is more accurate. "Short" is pretty much limited to physical height. "Little" applies to much more. You can be short and still not be little, or small. "Little" has a feeling of incapacity, a deficiency. Instead of little people, how about shorter people? As in I'm short, you're shorter. Big deal. Just means I can't reach the top shelf, and neither can you. The rest of both of us is as big as everyone else.
.