Friday, May 6, 2011

The Stuff of Legend

Why are stepmothers in fairytales always ugly or cruel? They never save anyone or have fairy godmothers on their side. They are rarely beautiful and their intelligence is always used to manipulate and control. Why?

Maybe in the society these stories were penned in a woman old enough or worldly enough to marry a widower was thought of as impure. Maybe they were rewarding virginal young girls with royal marriages and punishing the biddies who were willing to be with a man who was married before to send a moral message. That's not quite right though.

Are they saying that any woman who would marry a man who has children already must be after something. Were they warning against gold diggers and society climbers. Maybe they're commenting on the practical rather emotional reasons a man with children would rush to remarry after his wife passes. Loveless marriages can take all kinds of turns. Perhaps single fathers were simply uncomfortable disciplining their daughters. They could berate or slap an unruly boy, but not their sweet little girl. Many fathers in modern times have trouble with this. If this is the case it's conceivable that stepmothers are just getting a bad rap for doing daddy's dirty work.

A more disturbing theory would be that the men who wrote these tales simply couldn't conceive of loving a child that wasn't biologically yours. We've all heard the clique "I won't raise another man's child". This simply isn't how most women are wired. A child in need of love and care becomes ours in a different but no less powerful way than one we bear ourselves.

It seems to me that all the stepmothers I remember from these stories marry widowers none of these men have been estranged in any way from living spouses. Maybe because they couldn't conceive of a woman abandoning her children, it's a difficult notion even in modern times. There is no story in the dusty volumes of fairy tales for me.

I am the nonexistent beautiful stepmother who saved the child abdomen by his mother. I gave him love and care not bread crumbs and chores. I never denied him happiness. In time I gave him a sibling who is his equal not the crowned princess to his foot servant. I brought sunshine back into the house and completed a family. I never stole, lied, cheated or plotted anyone's murder. I never placed anyone under an evil spell. I simply choose to love a man who had a child with someone who left them behind. It was not a simple choice and is always a difficult job, but I didn't take it on to snatch a kingdom. Where is the true in all the fiction?

4 comments:

  1. while we are debunking old myths, why don't we just do away with the "step" designation all together? From where I'm sitting, all my children are simply that -- my children -- not a "stepchild" among them! And I'm certain you are TOTALLY Isaac's mom as well! love, ruthie

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good point, I wonder where the "step" came from anyway? Around here I'm just mom.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There should be a story about the fairy step-mother who comes into the child's life and fill the painful void their not so motherly-mother has created. Sounds like a potential book Katie, we could co-write it ... not much can substitute the parental-child bond except for a loving and giving wonderful step-mom like you ... always stay true to your heart and theirs will stay true to you ... Tamera

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's a good idea. I think the world needs some childrens literature with positive step moms.

    ReplyDelete