Methinks she is getting herself confused with her masochistic character in Secretary

[millionreasons]

MAGGIE GYLLENHAAL often puts husband PETER SARSGAARD's needs before her own - but the actress takes pleasure from making personal sacrifices for her partner.

The Dark Knight star wed the actor last year (09) after seven years of dating and they share a three-year-old daughter, Ramona.

Gyllenhaal often accompanies her husband on movie shoots and she loves nothing more than tidying his trailer while he works.

The actress also credits her Nanny MCPhee and The Big Bang co-star Emma Thompson with giving her a "classical" outlook on her partnership with Sarsgaard.

She tells America's Good Housekeeping magazine, "Emma, you kind of gave me the idea that a part of my life, a part of my mind, has to be devoted to my husband. My mother's generation has been bucking against that.

"But I've just been finding so much pleasure in sacrificing sometimes for my husband - going to where he's working and tidying up his trailer because he couldn't manage to do it, and bringing him things that will make him feel better, and being a wife in a more classical way. It feels really right to me."

I do hope her partner doesn't turn out to be a "classical" husband, hey?

Comments

[commonpeople.livejournal.com]

Only a slightly related note, I saw a rape awareness ad in the bus the other day and thought of your recent post. The ad's message was "rape happens" (shit happens?) and how girls should not be scared of coming forward to talk about it... it's like feminism never happened.

[millionreasons.livejournal.com]

There's a really awfully worded one on the tube at present: "Wake up to rape". Er, no thanks.

The Fawcett Society (or someone) should take out ads in FHM, Nuts etc reminding men that women aren't available for their sexual needs 24 hours a day.

Or maybe she's finding joy in a type of selflessness?

[http://www.google.com/profiles/117002429937333928184 (from livejournal.com)]

I love caring for my partner, putting their needs first, making sure they're taken care of. If it makes both of us happy, where's the harm? If it's a sacrifice that's made voluntarily, after consideration, rather then one that's pushed on people through stereotypes and cultural expectations, where's the harm? If the mantra of our society is 'be yourself' and part of who she is is someone that puts the person that she loves most before herself,surely she should be free to do so. After all - where's the harm?
Independence and selflessness are not mutually exclusive. One can elect to put others before ones self.
And if her partner is a more classical husband - takes responsibility for providing a safe, secure home environment for them and their children, and handles most financial matters, if it makes them happy, where's the harm?
It's curious to me that you assume that one person could only put another persons needs first out of masochism, rather then out of love. It's actually possible to do with no pain or even discomfort.
Best wishes.

Re: Or maybe she's finding joy in a type of selflessness?

[millionreasons.livejournal.com]

Because people in a relationship are equal. Of course one puts the other person first (at times), but the way she's talking (unless misquoted by the mag) is that it's one-sided. She admits that she's acting as a 'classical' wife i.e. one that put her husband first without considering her own needs. It's a step backwards. There seems to be a massive backlash against feminism at present, in the US in particular. Ever since 911, women seem to be being pushed back into 'traditional' roles. Hence all those bridal films, cup-cake decorating classes, taking the husband's name, and this kind of 1950s nonsense from Gyllenhall.

Despite what you are trying to say, it is entirely gendered. I'd be interested to read an article with Ms Gyllenhall's husband to get his take on it, whether he tidies up her trailer when she's working, what he sacrifices to make sure her needs are put first etc.

Of course she is free to do whatever the heck she likes, but the fact that she said this in a magazine means that a) she thinks it's important to stress her traditional female role and b) young women reading this will think this is the way women should behave.

Re: Or maybe she's finding joy in a type of selflessness?

[http://www.google.com/profiles/117002429937333928184 (from livejournal.com)]

Hm. But she does qualify her statement: "a part of my life, a part of my mind", she doesn't say "all", "sacrificing sometimes", not "always".
Reading the article, it strikes me that the quote is rather cherry picked by the editor, who I would well believe is pushing the agenda that you identify.