Jyoti, Offred, and I

Last class we compared Offred from The Handmaid's Tale and Jyoti from Jasmine. One of the most obvious similarities is that both women are oppressed. What is interesting however, is that both women are oppressed by other women; a theme that tends to be less common in women's literature. Aunt Lydia is constantly brainwashing Offred and the other handmaids. She wants them to believe that they are not worthy of choice and freedom and that they belong under the control of men. In Jasmine Dida, Pitaji's mother says, "Some women think they own the world because their husbands are too lazy to beat them" (47). She too wants Jyoti to believe that their place in the universe is beneath men. Another similarity both women struggle with is the idea of multiple identities. Although she never tells the reader what it is, Offred mentions multiple times her old name and she attaches it to her old life; her life before Gilead. The start of Jyoti's multiple identities begins when her husband Prakash calls her Jasmine. "To break off the past, he gave me a name name: Jasmine" (77). As Jyoti moves around the country and comes across new people, she receives different variations of her name to fit her new situation. From Jyoti to Jasmine to Jazzy to Jane, I'm unsure of how to refer to the narrator. I think for the duration of my blogging I am just going to refer to her as J. J struggles to distinguish between identities. She says,

"And which of us is the undetected murderer of a half- faced monster, which of us has held a dying husband, which of us was raped and raped and raped in boats and cars and motel rooms" (127)

http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/essay-10-03.html

Having lived in two different parts of the world, I understand what J is experiencing. When I go back to my hometown in Connecticut over the summer I have different nick-names than I do for the duration of the year in London. That isn't all that changes though. My group of friends in Connecticut have a different sense of humor, make different pop culture references, and enjoy different activities. Over the summer I subconsciously mold into someone more like them. It is always strange coming back to London right before school begins and realizing how much I have changed. However, within less than a week I am back to my old self. But what is my "old self"? Is that my true self? Is there just one version of myself or do both versions make up who I am? I guess as I get older and make new friends outside of a high school environment where there is so much pressure to conform, I will discover my true identity.

Who Is Jane?

Although Jane's story is unique and specific, I feel as though I've heard it before; A foreign individual desperate to assimilate, yet ends up settling for a mediocre life. At one point Jane says, "He is happy. And I am happy enough" (21). For Jane, anything seems better than the life she fled, a life mysterious to the reader for the time being. Jane appears to be a simple character, but I think there is more to her that I will eventually discover. Teddy Roosevelt's, "Speak softly but carry a big stick" I think is meant to mirror Jane's personality; reserved, but with a lot of depth (28).

Jane's thoughts about acculturation correspond with what I recently learned in my Human Geography class. One of the first things you change in an alien culture is the way you dress. Clothing is the first thing to go and on Jane recognizes this by saying, "Once we start letting go - let go just one thing, like not wearing our normal clothes, or a turban or not wearing a tika on the forehead - the rest goes on its own down a sinkhole"(29). Usually the last custom to change is food, and it is evident that Jane is still making her traditional food for her family and friends. I think the reason people cling to food rather than clothing is because eating is a more personal activity and tends to be concealed. Differences are usually not widely accepted in any host society and clothing is a more obvious dissimilarity.

In the first few chapters, I've been trying to piece Jane's past together. I think she worked as an illegal immigrant for some time. When she is watching a show about illegal Mexican workers she thinks, "One minute they were squatting on the floor webbing lawn furniture at some insane wage - I know, I've been there..." (27). I also know her family was once very wealthy, but that was a life she never knew. This reminded me of The Reluctant Fundamentalist, where the main character was also from Lahore. His family had also been very wealthy, but they slowly lost it all. I believe Jane has a troubled past and I'm eager to discover how it is going to affect her future.

Themes

After compiling a long list of themes last class, I started to recognise the following concepts in The Handmaid's Tale. The idea of identity and infantilism particularly struck me in this past reading. In chapter 41 Offred directly addresses the reader. She gives a reason for telling her story, "I tell, therefore you are" (page 279).  This reminded me of the famous quote "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). I believe that Offred's variation is much less selfish. Rather than focusing on her own being, she is concerned with the welfare of all humanity. It makes my variation seem insignificant - I used to have a shirt that said I talk, therefore I am. 

"Day by day, night by night he recedes, and I become more faithless" (page 281). I found my support for Offred in her quest to find herself and her way out of Gilead increase as she progressively tried to forget her identity and accept her grim fate.

Also the concept of infantilism was very prominent in these last few chapters. Originally we only discussed the idea of men infantilizing women, however on page 286 Offred reflects on the way Aunt Lydia addresses the Handmaids. "Its ladies instead of girls because of the Wives." The hierarchy amongst women opens the door for oppression and infantilization is a key component in belittling the Handmaid's so that they feel helpless and succumb to the rules and regulations of Gilead. Another example of infantilization is on page 294, "For lunch there was a cheese sandwich, on brown bread, a glass of milk, celerity sticks, canned pears." Before Offred even says anything,  I recognize that this is the type of lunch my mom would have made for me in elementary school. Offred goes on to say, "A schoolchild's lunch." She recognizes that the Handmaids are suppressed and she appears to be bitter about it, yet she doesn't do anything to fight it. It could be, like I mentioned earlier, that by this point she has given up and realizes that she is helpless. "I feel, for the first time, their true power" (page 298). 

In the final chapters Offred also manages to answer some of my looming questions. For example, she says that the reason flowers are prominently featured in her narrative is for the sole purpose of alleviating the pain. I also think that she attended Harvard University, where Gilead is set, because on page 284 she says, "It's very strange to be here again." Offred's fate is the one question that remains unanswered even after reading the Historical Notes. I would like to believe that Offred made it out of Gilead and reconciled with Luke and her daughter.  However,  based on everything I know, the chances of that seem unlikely.  

Monstruating: A Continuation of "Generalizations"

Just recently I watched an episode of Modern Family, a light hearted comedy that addresses every day issues. In this particular episode three of the characters (a mother and her two daughters) all had their periods on the same cycle. They are portrayed as emotional, irrational, and fragile. The husband Phil refers to the women as "Satan's Trifecta" and the son Luke tells the women they are "monstruating." The men in the episode think they understand what the women are dealing with and try to discretely avoid and manipulate them. Yet at the end of the episode it is Phil who displays emotional imbalance and the scene closes with the women embracing him into the club of menstruation. The episode in its conclusion reminded me of Steinem's piece If Men Could Menstruate. At the end of the article she says, "If women are supposed to be less rational and more emotional at the beginning of our menstrual cycle when the female hormone is at its lowest level, then why isn't it logical to say that, in those few days, women behave the most like the way men behave all month long?" Steinem is saying that by the transitive property of hormones, if women - estrogen = irrational and women - estrogen = man, then irrational = man. I think Phil embodies the sensitive male persona; however, it is important to take into consideration that this is intended to be an exaggerated situation. I definitely don't agree that all males are melodramatic, but I also don't agree that all women are unstable during the periods.

This leads me to another generalization - men may be as emotional as women, but they just don't show it. I think in our society today it is more acceptable for women to express their feelings while men are expected to conceal theirs. I included a video titled Boys Will Be Girls. Clearly this video is also an exaggeration, but I do think their is some accuracy in the fact that women talk about and analyze (quite possibly over analyze) things. I wonder if men are envious of the communication that takes place amongst women? I wonder if that is the root of all their mockery?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gspaoaecNAg

Who is Responsible?

Last class someone posed the question "Is Gilead a matriarchal or patriarchal society?" The Handmaid's Tale has intrigued me with its ambiguous story line and at this point in the book (about half way) details are starting to become more clear. At first glance it appears as though men have total control. The women are divided into different positions, such as handmaids or wives, where they are forced to perform repetitive and tedious tasks. The author's use of colours, creates a vivid image of what Gilead is like; "The mirrors have been replaced here too by oblongs of dull grey metal..." The women are deprived of many comforts and Gilead appears sterile, almost factory-like. Women are there for the soul purposed of producing and raising (although we haven't witnessed this yet in the book) offspring. In the past chapters we just read we discover that the commanders have access to books, writing utensils, and even games. We also discover that they still have a hard time finding pleasure in these things. It appears as though the community is not benefitting anyone. By depriving women of happiness, they (whoever they are) are subsequently hurting the men. The commander complains about lacking companionship, and that his Wife no longer listens to him. I began to sympathise with the commander, a character that I originally disapproved of. Offred also discovers that the Wife has the final say about Offred's fate, if she is found secretly meeting the commander in his office. If this is a patriarchal society, I would assume that the commander has final say, but clearly women have more power than I originally believed. Particular statements that Aunt Lydia makes, referencing the irreparable status of women in the past, makes me believe that there are some women in Gilead who believe that this society is in favour of women, making room for the possibility that women are responsible for this atrocity. I can't comprehend how someone could actually preach the idea that liberation comes through denial of freedom. I understand that without options, there is no opportunity to make the wrong choice, but whose to say that the ultimatum that the women are given is the right choice?

I don't want my question to remain unanswered. I am desperate to find out how such a place came to be in order to reassure myself that something like this could never happen to me. I hope that as Offred attempts to bury her past, I will be able to uncover more details.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/n/no_choice.asp

Generalizations

I think women these days sometimes shy away from their uniqueness, not wanting to bring attention to the fact that they are so different from men. The article If Men Could Menstruate highlighted the distinction between men and women. Light-hearted phrases such as, "Clearly, menstruation would become an enviable, worthy, masculine event," had most of the girls in the class laughing. Some of the males however, were offended by the author, Steinem's, generalizations and believed that her argument became increasingly less valid as she continued to poke fun at men. I think the article was more a call on women to take pride in their differences, than it was an attack on men. I think the reason Steinem referred to males as an example, was because men are known to have a way with spinning something negative into something positive. If this is the case, males should be flattered that Steinmen is encouraging women to be more like men. I believe that whoever has the power has the ability to change society's view on certain subjects. For example in the movie Mean Girls, "The Plastics" (a popular group of girls) can initiate any trend they want in their high school because people look up to them. Steinem wants women to take ownership and pride in the qualities that are uniquely female.

In the text Why I Want a Wife, the author uses a sarcastic tone to lampoon the stereotypical "duties of a Wife." I think the reason she capitalizes the word wife is because she views it as a classification that can overpower females. Certain phrases sound absurd in context; for example, "If, by chance, I find another person more suitable as a wife than the wife I already have, I want the liberty to replace my present wife with another one." However, this particular mindset does exist amongst men in some parts of the world. For example, in parts of the Middle East women are expected to maintain monogamous relationships while it is acceptable for men to have affairs and even multiple wives. On the other hand though, the author's generalizations are impersonal and stereotype men. The majority of husbands are not demeaning towards their wives and I could see how this article could be offensive. Although the course is called "women's literature," it is the first class that prompted me to approach and consider situations from both the male and female perspective.

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/regina-george?before=1294352327

Toxic Relationships

This week I read multiple texts focused on toxic relationships between men and women.  To start - the men were always abusive towards the women. Whether it was blatant physical abuse or subtle oppression of their wives, the men never stopped to reflect on their detrimental behavior. In "A Jury of Her Peers" the main character, Ms. Wright, is being held for supposedly murdering her husband. Based on the evidence, I gathered that Ms. Wright was maltreated during her many years of marriage. Her husband took away from her everything that made her happy. I think it is reasonable to say that her husband "killed" her, before she actually killed him. My class started to debate whether or not the male investigators would pardon Ms. Wright if they understood the relationship she and her husband had. It got me thinking about whether or not ongoing mistreatment justifies murder. There are constantly stories in the news about abused women who are driven to hurt their husbands. I was curious as to whether or not they are found guilty in court. It turns out that "Battered person syndrome" is considered a valid testimony in court that is mainly used by women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_woman_defense). Whether or not the claim will protect you - depends on how severe the case. In one particular case that I researched, a wife shot her tyrannical husband 11 times and was found not guilty of murder. I think it is better to try and get out of the marriage than stay around and stifle feelings that could eventually drive you to commit murder. I think the reason the main character Delia in "Sweat" doesn't blatantly murder her husband is because she tends to stand up to him. For example on page 19 she scolds him saying, "'Sykes, you quit grindin' dirt into these clothes!'" I think these small blows prevent Delia from bottling up all her anger and eventually exploding like Ms. Wright did. An interesting type of abuse that never really occurred to me, was men infantilizing women. This type of oppressive behavior is apparent in "The Yellow Wallpaper." The narrator's husband John calls his wife "blessed little goose," an endearing term that someone would usually say to their child or pet. I think John treats a grown woman like an infant because it gives him a sense of control over his wife. Later on page 30 he says "'What is it, little girl? Don't go walking about like that -- you'll get cold.'" His authority over her eventually drives her to insanity. In any situation it is easier to deny that something is wrong, but I think these types of toxic relationships stem from the women resisting to face their problems head on.