Literary Context and Conversation: The Awakening

House of Mirth~Be True To Yourself

As I started reading "The House of Mirth" by Edith Wharton I initially thought that I'd quite like Lily's character as a bit of a free spirit who was well aware of the "rules" of the social circle she moved in, but was determined to still keep true to herself.  While speaking with Seldon about Gerty Farish, she states "But we're so different, you know: she likes being good, and I like being happy."  By the end of the book, I felt quite disappointed in poor Lily.  I'll concede that it's hard to see the viewpoint of a character whose life is so far removed (in time and a myriad of other ways) from my own, and that maybe it shouldn't be disappointment I feel, but pity that a set of patriarchal ideas has so completely overshadowed these people and wreaked havoc on their lives. As Seldon noted a few moments after Lily's comment; "She was so evidently the victim of the civilization which had produced her, that the links of her bracelet seemed like manacles chaining her to her fate."

Logically, I should understand that Lily is just trying to play the game as she knows it to be-to be guided by the constraints placed on her by society.  The problem is, that is exactly what upsets me.  If a fictional character from a long ago era makes decisions based on societal norms instead of what she knows or feels to be right, that's really no issue.  What gets me is that I've seen this so much in my own personal experiences with the world, that I know it's not fiction.  I see people every day who essentially put on a mask and move about the world as if they were someone else.  I feel this is a residual effect of patriarchy that may have changed shape over time, but has remained as large as ever, and it's an effect that hurts both men and women, just as it did in "The House of Mirth"

Lily's position in society is so tenuous that to remain, she has to put on an act that has been dictated to her. While everyone in the society must adhere to the constraints, there is much more "wiggle" room for the men than the women, and single women had even more constraints than married women. This is often the same in today's society. It pains me to see people who are clearly unhappy continue on with a pretense for the sake of appearances.  It worries me even more when I see young women, putting on what could only be described as a show, for the benefit of men. It seems that both Lily and many women of today, go about in search of the perfect match for marriage in a way that could not possibly yield a match, as there is nothing shown of their true selves to match.  If I could I would tell young people of today (and Lily) to think more along the lines of something Carry Fisher said: "Look here, Lily, don't let's beat about the bush; half of the trouble in life is caused by pretending there isn't any.  That's not my way..."

In closing, I'd say that my opinion of Lily was greatly affected by how I view people in this time.  I want people to be happy and true to themselves, because I have learned that life is a lot easier that way, and it frustrates me when I see other people making mistakes I may have made.  I like Lily Bart, but just want to shake her and tell her "Be yourself! Speak up for yourself! In the end, your life will be so much better for it!"  Or at least she might still be alive....


*Background photo by Charles Dana Gibson

The Color Purple: Post-Marriage Relationships

While I thoroughly enjoyed reading all of the book; The Color Purple by Alice Walker, I especially enjoyed the final chapters of the book, the parts the motion picture had left out.  The part I especially loved were Celie and Albert's reconciliation.  This part was almost completely left out of the movie, with Celie not really seeing Albert after she curses him, but in the book, we journey with Celie as she navigates one of the most challenging relationships I can imagine; redefining a relationship with an ex-spouse.  I was enthralled by the unfolding of this new relationship and was very happy to see that Ms. Walker was brave enough to write it in a way that showed the depth of emotion, yet left both characters as whole human beings. As a woman who has had to navigate this kind of relationship-inasmuch as it is a relationship with an ex-spouse, not as in similar circumstances-I felt this subject was handled so beautifully that I felt myself wanting to sit on the porch and sew with my ex.

I felt that Ms. Walker really handled this relationship in a way that more resembled real life as opposed to a clean ending where Celie curses Mr._____ and walks out, leaving us to always revile him as a flat, one dimensional, evil character.  In this slow rebuilding, Celie had agency and was able to choose the direction the relationship took, yet Albert was shown to have depth of character and became more than Mr._____, but a real person with personal heartbreaks too. Celie went from being a non-person who was just a cog in the machine of patriarchy, to a woman who fully owned herself and exercised control over her life, even as she struggled to make sense of it.  In essence, Celie became a feminist.

At the same time, we learn that Albert isn't just some evil old devil man without a soul, but another victim-albeit less obviously so-of the patriarchy. His life was corrupted by his father's beliefs and his heart and soul suffered because of it.  We learn that while he was the dominant force in upholding the patriarchy, his real self seems to flourish when that dominance is surrendered and he starts to treat Celie, and others, as equals. It's a beautiful example of how the patriarchy and feminism really are intertwined and affecting everyone, as opposed to a pure allegory of men vs. women.

Kindred: Would Dana Have Been Born If She'd Been Born Male?

In reading the book Kindred by Octavia Butler, it's easy to notice lots of inequalities among the characters.  The book is teeming with racism, sexism, and class disparities, seeing as how much of the "timeline" of the book is spent in the height of slavery in the United States, on a plantation.  But many of the inequalities are between people who are of the same standing in one aspect or another:  between blacks, or whites, or men or women.  People who might be on equal footing in one aspect, but are unequal in another.  This intersectionality plays a large part in the events that unfold in Dana's experiences.  I feel that while Dana would seem to have the least status in this setting, which would therefore hold her back, this often seems to be the very thing that gives her the advantages she needs to survive.

I feel that in many instances, the very thing that you would expect to make things difficult to impossible for Dana are the things that help her, that give her an "in" with other characters. It seems that if Dana had been a black man or a white woman, she may have been put into situations that would have kept her from ever getting to know Rufus, and therefore helping herself.  From the very beginning, her being a woman seems to keep her from greater troubles that a man might have had.  When Dana saves Rufus in the river, his mother thinks she is, as Rufus says:  "just some nigger she had never seen before" but is startled for a moment when Dana talks, possibly because the person she thought was a man was actually a woman.  Later, when Dana goes to Rufus after he breaks his leg, both his father and mother stare at her when they see her, as if trying to remember her. Likely, no notice would have been taken if she had been in a dress like the slave women, but the sight of a woman who was dressed like a man seemed to trigger something, possibly a memory.  Dana doesn't think that Mrs. Weylin would have been able to recognize her after a few years, especially since she seemed to only have a brief glimpse, but Mrs Weylin says "I've seen you before." as if she does remember someone so out of character with the time.

Additionally, Dana's being a female in this time period gives her a greater chance of bonding with Rufus, so that she can help both him and herself.  It's very likely that if Dana had been male, he would have been instructed to go back outside with Nigel and Luke after carrying Rufus into the house (if black) or expected to leave with Mr. Weylin to go downstairs and leave the nursing to the women, (if white) but as a black woman, she was able to stay with him, as caretaker was an accepted role for black women.  Had Dana been a white woman, there would have been little reason for continued interaction between her and Rufus either, as the slaves and his mother would have been in charge of caring for him.  Dana's being a black woman also meant that she could more easily slip into life working in and around the house, since most of the house servants were women, while most of the men were sent to the fields.

I think the greatest benefit of being a black woman was her effect on Rufus.  He quickly trusted Dana and came to care about her, and some of this, I believe, was because she was a bit of an oddity to  him.  In his world, all women were lesser people, but Dana's dressing like a man, speaking like an educated person, and stating that she is equal to her white husband all fascinate Rufus and increase his desire to keep her around.

I find it interesting that Butler created a character who would seemingly have little advantage in both the world she was born into-as Dana would lack both white privilege or male privilege-and then thrusts her into a world where the privileges she does have are far greater than her peers in that time have.  Yet despite her lowered status, she is often able to use exactly these drawbacks to her advantage, even if only for a short time.  If Dana's character had been white (woman OR man) or a black man, there would likely have been fewer opportunities to bond with Rufus and survive in the way she had.  Yet, had Dana been born in that time as a black woman, she would have likely endured one of the lowest "positions" of anyone in American history.

The Handmaid's Tale: A Manual For Gender Oppression

As I read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood, I frequently found myself shaking my head in disbelief.  One might think that wouldn't be so uncommon in a dystopian fiction, where things are  expected to be so outrageously worse than in the world as we know it, but that wasn't the reason for the head shaking.  The head shaking wasn't because what I was reading was so unbelievable, but because so many of the "ridiculous" ideas in the book could be pulled right out of a history book, or worse, current event news; specifically in Afghanistan. Some of the connections stuck me as so eerily familiar that I started quest of "which came first?" Sadly, it was the book, by a full decade.  If a book is going to mirror abuse and oppression of women, it should at least be in a purely historical context. We've long since outgrown such idiotic ideas about women, right?  Wrong.  The Handmaid's Tale could easily have served as an instruction manual for the Taliban to oppress the women of Afghanistan.

As Offred details all of the ways that she is controlled, the first that truly struck me as familiar was the way she was dressed. "The skirt is ankle-length, full, gathered to a flat yoke that extends over the breasts, the sleeves are full.  The white wings too are prescribed issue, they are to keep us from seeing, but also from being seen."  This description, except for the color, describes fairly closely a nun's habit.  In fact, Offred calls her appearance "A Sister, dipped in blood."   But in reading the description, my first thought was the burqa; more specifically the women of Afghanistan who are forced, by the Taliban, to wear a type of burqa called a chadri.  A chadri coveres a women from head to toe, ostensibly for modesty, but the covering goes well beyond the needs of modesty.  The chadri not only covers a woman's body, but her face, including her eyes-with a netting material-which severely limits her vision.  She can neither see or be seen.  Burqas have long been a clothing choice for women of some religions, but the Taliban took that choice from Afghani women and made it a requirement.  Failure to "choose" correctly became punishable by death. The clothing had become a way to identify and control women, just as it had in Gilead.

 As I continued reading, I found more examples of oppression that were closely linked to events in Afghanistan.  Women's movement about the cities was severely limited in both, under the guise of protection: "We turn and walk together...toward the central part of town.  We aren't allowed to go there except in twos.  This is supposed to be for our protection, though the notion is absurd: we are well protected already."  Women in Afghanistan were not allowed to go out unless accompanied by a male relative or risk being beaten by the Taliban.  In the book, Moira summed it up: "They don't want us going anywhere, you can bet on that."

Another similarity between the book and Afghanistan was the immediate restriction of education.  In Afghanistan, women's colleges were closed and women were cut off from paths to education.  In the book, women were not even allowed to read signs. "...when they decided that even the names of shops were too much temptation for us."   Words were contraband because of the power they hold, the power of education.  Offred is thrilled when she finds words hidden in her room, even if she couldn't understand them; "Still, it was a message, and it was in writing, forbidden by that very fact..."

The list could go on comparing the similarities of the oppression of women in Gilead and in Afghanistan, but no matter how many more we find, they all point to a sad truth:  The Handmaid's Tale  was written as dystopian fiction- a made up story intended to show the world the problems it faces and how drastically wrong it could be.  That a full decade after the book was published, a religious regime took over a country (just like the book) and oppressed women to the point that they weren't seen as much more than livestock (just like the book) to further their own agendas (just like the book) is such a sad commentary on the human race and how little we seem to learn.  The Handmaid's Tale could have given the Taliban insights on how to take over a country.  That so many could identify with the rightousness of oppressors speaks volumes about how far we, the human race, still have to go.

Handmaid's Tale/Taliban

I just wanted to include this info about the Taliban in Afghanistan for comparison to The Handmaid's Tale.  http://m.state.gov/md6185.htm

Being Masculine and Feminine in Panem

In reading and discussing The Hunger Games, I've found myself coming back to the question "Does Katniss really display masculine/feminine traits?"  I find myself chafing at the thought that certain qualities are considered inherently male or female.  We may think that certain physical or psychological traits as such, but when we look at a definition of inherent: belonging to the basic nature of someone or something we can see that masculinity or femininity are traits are not.  These descriptors are drawn of our own experiences, but they are not necessarily inherent.  I feel it is entirely possible that in the future world of Panem, the ideas of masculine or feminine have become obsolete, as words so often do over the course of time.  This is an idea I like.

As we read and examine the book in the 21st century, we are placing our 21st century ideas of masculine and feminine onto the characters.  I feel that, perhaps Suzanne Collins' writing brings us to a future where traits are attributed more on a person's class or experiences than gender.  In the book, traits that we would consider more feminine aren't displayed only in females, nor displayed by all females. While this is often true of people in the 21st century, the difference lies in that in Panem, it is not viewed as unusual.  

Peeta is a gentle soul with a tender, empathetic side who yearns for love, but Katniss isn't unnerved by the fact that these emotions are coming from a male.  She is unnerved that they are there at all because she is simply uncomfortable with them because her life experiences have taught her to be hard to survive.  The Capitol citizens all seem to be frivolous and obsessed with appearances.  Today, these traits are almost always attributed to females and/or labeled as feminine or effeminate-a word that is generally an insult-when it is a man displaying these traits.  But in Panem, they are simply indicators of a class that has not had to struggle.  Prim is a kind and seemingly delicate person, but again, this is not attributed to her being a girl.  Katniss wants Prim to remain this way and works hard to protect Prim from the ugliness of the world not because she wants Prim to be girlish, but because her love for Prim means Katniss does not want Prim to have to suffer as she did.

 Conversely, Katniss displays a number of traits that we would call masculine today, but it appears she does not think of herself this way, nor does she think of other traits as feminine.  Katniss is strong, not masculine. It is offered that her station in life creates a need to act this way.  I believe she didn't want to grow up closed off and distrusting, but she had no choice if she wanted to survive and protect Prim.  Career girls Glimmer and Clove are both skilled fighters, as are all of the tributes from Districts 1 and 2, but neither is ever described as being masculine. This is another example of how nobody in Panem seems concerned with whether someone is male or female-or even with physical size-but seem to all know that it's a person's knowledge and training that determines a person's personality and even physiology, since the larger stronger tributes are the ones who are well fed and trained, not exclusively the male tributes.


All of these instances of different people of Panem showing traits that are typically assigned a gender in our world today,are not given a gender in Panem.  Displays of strength or weakness, emotional dependency or being closed off, even afraid of emotion, are all presented at traits that a person has come to develop over their lifetime, not stamped on their psyche at birth.  People may still be judged in Panem, but they are not given the stigma or status of gender.  For me, Suzanne Collins has created a world that, in one aspect, has reached equality.  For me, feminism isn't about gaining acceptance for women to be masculine or men to be feminine, but where gender neutrality puts us all on a level playing field where we can develop ourselves as people.  As we can see with all of the problems that plague Panem, removing gender stereotypes would not remove all of the issues of equality, but perhaps in this one aspect, Panem has gotten something right.