HOME | DD
meerkat14 — The Dragonfly Girl
Published: 2011-07-05 19:21:03 +0000 UTC; Views: 361; Favourites: 4; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
Her feet are winged; she is a dragonflygrounded by the weight of her solid bones.
Her fingertips are pinpricks of starlight
that cannot pierce the fabric of her shroud.
Related content
Comments: 14
As per your questions:
I think this is too short. The weight of this description never sinks in.
I'm afraid I don't quite follow the use of dragonfly "grounded by the weight of her bones" bit. There are plenty of other flying creatures that would have been a better choice. Indeed, dragonflies dote about, but using "solid bones" seems a bit redundant (e.g., gelatinous bones?).
The second image is much better, offering the interesting image of "fingertips [as] pinpricks of starlight." Yet, once again, like the first line into the second, the third line into the fourth makes a jarring analogy. You say "her shroud." Now, I've known stars to be considered "pinpricks in the fabric of heaven" which is actually from Baden Powel (on virtuous young men), the founder of the Boy Scouts. Yet, when her fingertips cannot pierce her [own] shroud, I'm afraid I can't make a good connection from what you've given here.
I would encourage you to use this imagery, as dragonflies are both very observable and very interesting, likewise "fingertips as pinpricks of starlight" could be put to some better use.
As such, I don't think the theme presents itself in an obvious manner to me, the passerby.
Likewise, I didn't notice the iambic pantameter help this, really. Nor did it particularly bother me. I will say it was a littler jarring the first few times. All in all, I think the lack of clarity in presentation hurts the overall message which, to me, is shrouded.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thank you so much for this extremely long and involved comment. i actually agree with much of what you have said here (i.e. too short and doesn't exactly get the theme i was thinking of across in a good manner).
i'll explain my thought process while writing this (although i'm not expecting you to care, i just figure i should). girls, and boys which i am going to explore in a separate poem, are so trapped by gender roles and expectations in society (although this is written more as an earlier society). girls are supposed to be delicate (hence dragonfly, with the delicate wings) and less... obvious, i suppose, than boys in society (hence stars, hidden by the sun during the day and useful at night (as women and girls were more so in olden days (all these brackets may be confusing, my apologies)). and i feel that this must have felt completely suffocating and defeating (hence the image of the shroud).
reviewing this poem, this theme and image does not come out correctly. thank you for making me think about it - i will very likely re-write and re-submit this, or write and entirely different poem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As for gender roles, I think you are correct and incorrect. It is a shame that young men and women are shoehorned into one role or another--on the other hand when we reject what is natural to us (our masculinity or femininity) we move in the opposite direction to the other extreme. There is no denying that we are male or female, and we shouldn't escape this fact, but nor should we become caricatures.
To be fair, to simply consider being "hidden" was suffocating may be taking it a bit far. For many women, it was work in the house or work in the fields. Likewise, with pregnancy and maternity, they are, for all purposes, helpless. So there's a reason for those old times too and nature runs her proper course of the man protecting his wife who carries their child.
Thank you for your explanation. Don't worry about parentheticals, as I use them constantly too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
true - i didn';t live then, i have no idea if it was suffocating. from a 21st century perspective of a girl who has a full time job out of the hoome and has never been pregnant/ raised a child, it seems suffocating in comparison to the freedom that i therefore perceive myself having.
in regards to gender roles, i really don't think that they are necessary. with trans-gender people, for example - clearly they do not identify of fit into traditional gender roles. without technology and the ability to change ones gender, as well as teh social consequences of the past, gender roles were important - but nowadays, i believe they are obselete.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think this is a very dangerous manner of looking at things. When gender becomes something superficial, one which can just be changed (and thus artificial) it not only denies what nature have produced us as. Transgender people do not identify themselves as their own gender (thus seek a change) or fit "traditionally" for a number of reasons, but they take this to mean that their inability to fit into some course of action is an indication of the meaninglessness of gender.
To say gender roles are obsolete, as I see it, is not only wrong, but a rather terrible way of reducing ourselves to merely as something manipulable. It is, in reality, all we're saying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
whether it is a dangerous way to look at things or not (i do not believe so, but i also have a likely different life-experience than yourself) gender and gender roles are something that are evolving constantly, ie in the discussed transgender.
even when one looks at history from, say, the 1960s to present, huge changes in gender roles have been made. women have started working outside the home in far greater numbers, there are ever more prevalent groups of men and women campaigning for father's rights (ie, the father's rights groups that highlight disparities in the awarding of custody of children). this shows that gender roles are evolving and, to all appearences, conglomerating.
physical gender is becoming less important - perhaps to call it obselete is jumping ahead a few years (under the assumption that current trends continue) - but certainly throughout history gender roles have evolved as any other social construct has evolved. they won't stop evolving now - evolution both social and scientific is a constant process.
if, of course, you do not give credence to the theory of evolution that comparison was pointless, but i'm sure you will understand the concept of what i'm trying to say.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think you are being unfair to me and my intelligence.
So, you are saying that evolution is "phasing out" male and female?
And do you assume to suggest that the 1960's and 70's are an accurate foil to the previous 2000+ years? And is it your opinion that evolutionary changes in human beings occur in 40-some years?
You are talking about "social Darwinism" which is radically distinct from evolutionary biology. You cannot reduce the shifting winds of society to biological adaptation. In fact, these gender roles do not "better society" or make it superior to prior eras in any manner. As such your conclusion gender roles are evolving and, to all appearences, conglomerating. is not only based on false premises, but false.
Gender roles are different from gender, and if you fail to make that distinction you will be led to more problems than what you have already. If nature is any indication, a male and a female are still required for childbirth, regardless of how much technology intervenes this--the basic formula remains the same.
Similarly, your appeal to evolution has no grounding in actual evolutionary theory, but application of a natural theory to human opinion and social "feeling" (in all honesty). If we were evolving to be asexual (or whatever) then we would see a far more noticeable trend then what we have now and, likewise, it seems like you take exceptions to the rule (i.e., transgenders, hermaphrodites, etc.) to be proof that the rule (so to speak) is faulty when, in reality, they are natural anomalies as opposed to "our future." So too with these social situations. Many of these court battles concerning fathers are borne of bad marriages and bad parenting, though, given the circumstances, it could at times be something else. "father's rights" are not a sign things are shifting--fathers are still fathers.
That being said, I agree with nothing you say whatsoever based on merits of reason and experience. You may not see it as dangerous, but that's fine, but if these are the reasons you supply for holding such a thought, you confuse experience-mixed-with-feelings for fact and rational organization. I don't say it to be mean, but this is derived from my reasons above.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
no no no, i'm sorry for the appearance that i was insulting your intelligence (rereading it does seem that way - my apologies).
however i was not saying that social evolution and biological evolution are the same thing - i was saying that they are both contant processes. they are both continously evolving, at whatever rate they may be doing so.
gender and sex are not the same thing - i apologize as well for not making that clear. gender is what someone feels they are, sex is the physical manifestation of their gentialia (although this is excepted in the case of hermaphrodites, as you point out). i did not mean to state that sex (in this context) is evolving - it isn't, clearly, and we are not evolving physically or socially to be asexual. well, we might be, but evidence does not currently support that hypothesis as far as i have read.
court systems are biased towards mothers, because the traditional view is that mothers identify more with their children and will take better care of them. obviously this is not true in all cases, but the courts do not always recognize this. that is what i was trying to say with that point.
in regards to social darwinism, see above for the distinction between gender (and gender roles) and sex. right now in society, gender roles are becoming less distinct that they were historically - the 1960's and 70's were not meant to represent the last however many millenia of human culture (2000 years is innaccurate in my opinion - greek culture goes far further back, and there is evidence of societies tens of thousand of years ago) but was rather meant as a microcosm of human social development.
and in regards to the nature argument - anything humans do, really, is part of the "natural order". to state otherwise is to imply that humans are superior to nature and its creator - or that the creator is not natural. which may be what you are stating, i am not certain.
i hope that clears things up a bit - i apologize for being unclear, and for the appearance of insulting your intelligence. it was not at all my intention.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, as I try to live by more and more:
"It is good sense in a man to be slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense" (Proverbs 19:11). So, in this case, no worries here.
social evolution and biological evolution are the same thing - i was saying that they are both contant processes.
Here is a concern of mine. What happens when we socially regress? Or in some cases, in what manner does society "progress." In fact, many people are literate, but far less literate than 100 years ago. People used to know more languages, be better read, and as far as physically fit, they were less obese and in some senses harder working. I think "progress" in biology works marvelous---the body never takes a day off. But social progress? We take a lot of days off. Society, despite all analogies, is not "just" some organism.
gender is what someone feels they are
I would have to ask that if one "feels womanly" or "feels manly" does that make him more a man or a woman? I don't understand.
court systems are biased towards mothers, because the traditional view is that mothers identify more with their children and will take better care of them. obviously this is not true in all cases, but the courts do not always recognize this. that is what i was trying to say with that point.
Law speaks generally and not to all specific cases, as it should. Likewise, mothers are generally considered closer to their children because they literally carry them inside of them. In some senses, it is true. But, of course, there are outstanding fathers and sometimes terrible mothers. But this line of inquiry doesn't help anything, honestly.
in regards to social darwinism, see above for the distinction between gender (and gender roles) and sex. right now in society, gender roles are becoming less distinct that they were historically - the 1960's and 70's were not meant to represent the last however many millenia of human culture (2000 years is innaccurate in my opinion - greek culture goes far further back, and there is evidence of societies tens of thousand of years ago) but was rather meant as a microcosm of human social development.
This whole paragraph seems incomplete. I'm not sure what you're trying to say concerning Greece or the 1960's.
and in regards to the nature argument - anything humans do, really, is part of the "natural order". to state otherwise is to imply that humans are superior to nature and its creator - or that the creator is not natural. which may be what you are stating, i am not certain.
I've written extensively on this subject, and I disagree. I look at it, in brief, this way:
If a tree stopped producing fruit, or any other creature just decided to grow, act, etc. in any way it wanted, it usually leads to death and we would hardly call that behavior or actions that lead to life, which should be the aim of all actions in some way. What humans do are natural and unnatural.... rather, natural in two ways. They are natural in one way in that they act through nature--they are physical bodies. The other way they act naturally is their actions--to they lead to improvement, life, and (in another case) happiness? Can those actions, if done again and again, sustain life? In this manner, killing for pleasure does not do this and is an "unnatural action" with respect to human action, it is a "misuse" of freedom. This is my view in brief, brief terms.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the reference to greece was because of your statement of 2000 years old culture - hellenistic culture and society goes back at LEAST 1000 years farther than 2000 years. and evidence of temples (and therefore religion and society) has been found in turkey dating something like 90 000 years ago. i was just saying that 2000 years is inacurate.
as well - people are less literate now than they were before? when before? this depends on many, many different factors - whether you are speaking of humanity as a whole, whether cultures actually have a writing system (since some do not), what literate actually means. and in regards to people knowing more languages before (before when, by the way) that is not necessarily true. the united states is one of the few places where people do not tend to learn more languages - in canada (where i live) taking french in school until competence is actually required. and in europe and around the world, the vast majority of people speak three or even four languages.
the 1960s and 1970s were meant as a microcosm of human development - as in, a small section of society which one can look at in order to see general patterns enacted in a specific time frame and way, ie the changing politics and gender roles.
in regards to feeling manly and feeling womanly, you have taken what i said in a manner which was not how it was intended - which may have been my own fault - i meant that a person is the gender that they truly feel they are, regardless of the physical sex of their bodies.
since your opinion on the natural order of things is such - i won't argue that, because influencing people's opinions is difficult work. i'm just trying to point out here what i meant and clarify anything that was unclear.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I like it very much. I hate to say it's too short because maybe you really have said all you wanted with it, but I do think it could be longer and that might make the theme more clear. (I'm mostly getting "earthbound" as a theme but I'm more into imagery than "deciphering.") And the imagery I really like! Especially the last line.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thank you for your feedback - i do agree with it perhaps being longer, but the ending sounds so final to me, and i can't quite figure out how to lengthen it! earthbound is what i was imagining as the theme (not in that exact erm, but that theme) so yay!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
