I was just reading Newsweek...

I was just reading Newsweek (captured by a middle seat on the plane, flying to Austin TX) – and a blurb about the new James Bond (Daniel Craig).  The Newsweek comment was “and Angelina for Bond girl”!

God, I hope not.

I think that I’ve mentioned before, that a Bond girl is something more than a Terminator or Lara Croft type.  The idea here is that the Bond girls have always been business women in their own lives – where Bond “drops in” and they are able to be “#1 at being #2” to his being #1 (and getting his fool head shot off in the process) – then they continue on doing what they are doing in their deep and 3-dimensional lives, while he goes on being the “suave action hero” with no history.

Bond grrls have “history” and “specificity.”  Please, PLEASE don’t let Casino Royale change the “tenor” of the Bond grrl in this respect.  

It was sort of heading in that direction with the last Bond – I just hope that it doesn’t continue.  It would really make me sad.

Some of the “bad” Bond grrls have had the “I’m #1 and you’re manure” about them – that “bust down the doors and don’t look back, me me me” thing.  The whole issue, though, is that for the franchise (especially the early years), that’s not what a Bond grrl was.  Remember – these women were on their own, running their own businesses, then they are supportive of Mr. Bond, he moves on doing his 1-dimensional thing in his nifty keen-o gadgets, and they continue on in their 3-dimensional lives.  They show how important being the “indispensable #2” is – which is my whole point.  

I read things like this in Newsweek – or articles on “Women Leading” – and I keep coming back to things that really rankle me.  For example, an article I read recently talked about how “disgusted” women who had “fought to break the glass ceiling” were that younger women were “dropping out to raise babies.”  And how “all their battles might have been for naught.”

I don’t think so…but what I do think is that women have often been pushed into this “hard charging” role, without examining themselves on the inside.  And certainly the concept of being “supportive” has taken a serious kick in the gut time and time again.

I just want to advocate balance – which to me is what the Bond grrls (at least, up through the “ages”) have exemplified.  The ability to run their own businesses, but not be braggarts or blowhards.  To be, in a word, empowered and feminine – to flex their fEmpowerment.  To be confident and centered enough to know that there is immense power in being supportive.  

Women around me keep badgering their husbands, boyfriends, male partners to be more “supportive” of them, and then when the men might ask for the same, the women wave the “you’re trying to oppress me!” flag.  I get so angry.  Power is in the feminine.  Power is in the support.  

Be centered, and get out there and run your business if that’s what you’re all about – if that’s your passion.  But be sure to be feminine, “yin,” supportive, “needed” while you’re at it.  Be full and centered in yourself – don’t start from being “empty.”  Get that straight – but then take a few moments to see how much of a difference you can make, not by heading the largest corporation in the world, but in taking 13 minutes out of your day to soothe your partner, or to not have to be “right” or “#1” – just once.

I bet it’ll be harder than you think.