www.streetmagazine.net
Jane, Jane, Jane: The Jane Theory
by Sarah Morris
I’m a traditional college student, as traditional as they come; 23, female, white, middle economic class, single. Unfortunately, like many traditional college students, I’m in the thick of a sticky, gobby mess I want to get out of ASAP--ever uncertain dating game. The quest for my true soul mate. I don’t really like it and for many reasons: one, there never was a gamier game; two, it’s a harried process; and three, it’s a nightmare trying to figure out those darned men! Of these reasons, for me the last is the by far the most distressing. Men may complain the same of us women, but I for one think they are just as difficult to figure out. What do these people want of us? Do they want the weak and innocent maiden? The tawdry and wild seductress? Or do they want a woman who can be their equal in emotion and intelligence? I believe each of these female archetypes are in every woman. The hard part is choosing which one to show our prospective mate. Because I associate each archetype with a Jane, I call my theory the Jane Theory.
First we have Jane of Dick and Jane fame. We
all remember the sweet girl in knee socks clutching
a dolly who mastered such feats as running, jumping,
and helping Mother. In our youth, most of us became
indoctrinated with the image of sweet Jane and
all she represented. We see Jane reflected in
pink frosting on cupcakes, in fluffy teddy bears,
and in old “Leave it to Beaver” episodes.
Jane is the ideal of weak womanhood. She is the
girl who needs to be protected, provided for,
and dominated. She timidly makes herself known
when a woman giggles at a joke or says she’s
not smart. Jane makes a man feel strong and gentle.
She brings out his fatherly feelings. But Jane
will never be esteemed as a true woman. She will
always be like a delicate flower, very pretty
to look at and admire but not to be touched too
much. Jane brings to mind one word--fragile.
Second we have Jane of Tarzan notoriety. Jane
conjures up a very different image, that of a
wild, untamed vision of aggressive physical beauty.
We see her poised on a tree branch clad in a tight
leopard skin with her disheveled hair blowing
madly about her face. Jane became an ideal to
us in our adolescent years; that time when boys
and girls were just discovering they were different
and liking it. Jane can be seen in our day glaring
at us through red lipstick, Barbie dolls, and
bikini waxings. She is the woman of sexual power
and she thrives on her dominance. A woman shows
her Jane when she asks a man out, when she shaves
her legs, and when she buys lace underwear. Men
like Jane, for she looks them in the eye and gives
them the challenge of trying to tame her. They
never will; this race will not be thwarted by
golden apples thrownacross the path. Jane will
continually elude them. Once a manthinks he has
caught her, he will see her laughing at him from
other eyes and other symbols. The chase goes on,
and since men only human, they will tire of it
in time. Jane will never beconquered and that
is her ultimate failing. Jane can bedescribed
in one word--wild.
Last, we have Jane of Jane Eyre origins. This
lastJane is vastly different from the first two.
She is the meetingplace betwixt them. Jane is
innocent like Jane the First, yetshe is wise.
Jane is passionate like Jane the Second, yet she
is demure. She is her own woman and seeks to be
partners withone who is his own man. We see Jane
in our minds much as she isin Bronte’s novel,
the plucky woman who shines amid her challenges.
The veritable daisy among roses. Jane ismanifested
in our age in symbols such as bellies swollen
withpregnancy, a classical novel lying on a coffee
table, and ivory bedsheets catching the light
of a pale sunlit morning. A womanshows her Jane
when she participates in a debate, makes a craft,
and sends out Christmas cards. Men seek Jane much
as Jane’s own Mr. Rochester did, to find
someone to “mentally shake handswith”
and “love as [their] own flesh” (Bronte,
158, 305 respectively). The first Jane cannot
fill these requirements for she is too immature.
The second Jane cannot fill them either for she
is too indomitable. Only the last Jane can satisfy
a man’s mostly unknown desire for partnership.
Jane espouses one term--equal. Each Jane--Jane
the First, Jane the Second, and Jane the Third--are
within every woman. Each of us has a child, a
temptress, and a wife inside of us, and each has
her own voice. Men can scarcely appreciate the
slightly schizo-debate that rages in a woman when
she is dating him. From the first instance you
see a guy you could like, suddenly three voices
start clamoring within you, begging you for the
opportunity to catch him. While a woman may believe
that she shows her balanced Jane the Third most
of the time, the truth is that we women are not
above a little subterfuge in order to catch a
man. If we believe the man will like it, a woman
will summon any Jane she thinks will do the job
and that Jane plays her role to the hilt. Jane
the First will bat long eyelashes and wear frothy
frills at her home-cooked meal for two. Jane the
Second will buy a daring dress and breathe softly
against a man’s ear as they dance. Jane
the Third will even donate time to a charity and
invite ten of her friends to witness it so she
can later modestly deny that she’s a wonderful
person. Combine these three Janes in one courtship
and confusion for the males is bound to build.
But the dating game was meant to be played by
two, was it not? What about the other side of
the coin? Is there not an equally complex and
occasionally devious “George Theory”
working among the males of our society? Isn’t
there a George like King George III who will do
as he wants and the rest be damned? Isn’t
there a George like Georgy Porgy who has a "love
‘em and leave ‘em" attitude and
leaves his girls to “cry”? Isn’t
there a George like George Bailey who will stand
for goodness no matter what? Do not women become
just as confused when the man they date heatedly
debates politics at dinner,
makes tasteless jokes with his friends, sweetly
takes her hand, then aggressively presses for
much more at the doorstep? What a headache. So
what can we conclude from this mess weeuphemistically
call “dating”? All the swooning, dominating,
helping, cursing, sobbing, lusting, and loving..
Is it worth it? The final conclusion to make from
all of this is that Jane and George are meant
to be. No matter how tiresome the process may
become, finding the man with Georges that will
complement your Janes for life is the grandest
achievement any woman can hope to attain. This
is the work of a lifetime; the work of gods. To
all Janes and Georges, keep up the divine work
and find your destiny.
Even if dating is the only way to do it.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bronte, Charlotte. Jane Eyre. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth,
1992