In the Style of Virginia Woolf: Marriage

Marriage requires the wife be her husband's property. For women are, after all, forced to take on, rather than given, their husband's surname after marriage; required to be their husband's property, so that they can be taken care of, oppressed, controlled; forced to have Mrs. as their only title; stripped of their name  like Virginia Woolf's Clarissa in Mrs. Dalloway is "being Mrs. Dalloway; not even Clarissa any more... being Mrs. Richard Dalloway," and therefore loses her identity when she becomes her husband's property, for this is how the world sees Clarissa now (the title of the book itself shows how Clarissa must be forced to be identified as her husband's property, bound to their marriage; whereas Mukherjee's Jasmine gives her a choice of identity as she fumbles around redefining herself); like Martha Hale, of "A Jury of her Peers," written by Susan Glaspell, is primarily referred to as "his [Mr. Hale's] wife... Mrs. Hale" by the narrator, and her friend only as "Mrs. Peters;" therefore, it makes sense that these two women can only bring themselves to call their old friend "Minnie Foster, though for twenty years she had been Mrs. Wright;" they would like to continue to she their friend the way she used to be, rather than owned and identity-less (Woolf 8, Glaspell 2). Such are the small things women do in attempts to fight against their circumstances.

Such are the small things women do in attempts to fight against their circumstances only if ownership by their husbands is something they wish to fight against. For Jasmine, the character Bharati Mukherjee wrote as the center of her novel Jasmine, does not mind being her husbands property; as a fourteen year old girl in Hasnapur, India, she wanted the imagined joint store with her husband, Prakash Vijh, to be called "Vijh & Wife" even after given the option of "Vijh & Vijh" (Jasmine sees herself as Mrs. Vijh, because she does not know any better, while Clarissa is forced to see herself as Mrs. Dalloway by society and because of class); and this small detail of word choice, shows that some women, women unlike Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters (if only sarcasm could be read in the voice or written word) do not mind being owned by their husbands; do not mind being given the title "wife" and nothing more; not even her own husband's last name in celebration of her love for him (Mukherjee 89). For marriage, being Mrs. Hale or Mrs. Peters. or Mrs. Vijh, does not have to be a controlling system, or display the ownership of Mr. Hale, Mr. Peters, and Mr. Vijh; the ownership of a great, powerful man (just because he is a man) over the owned, controlled woman; for being Mrs. Hale can be being Offred, Offred with Luke, where, despite both poo-pooing her mother's feminist views, Luke treated Offred as an equal, just as Prakash did with Jasmine, who was, perhaps, too young to think and act against the world she knew in Hasnapur where a woman's whole life revolved around their husband and it was expected by society that she kill herself should her husband die; being Offred with Luke was equality between man and women before their society was gradually taken over by Gilead and Offred's access to money was dependent on her husband, her job stripped from her, her rights. Such are the small things that are taken away that further insinuate and create female inferiority.

Such are the small things that further insinuate and create female inferiority, break women, and keep women down; like Offred being owned by an atypical brand of marriage in Gilead, owned by Fred and Serena. For Gilead dictates that Offred has an obligation to Fred and Serena (different from the religious obligation Offred has to herself and to society to keep herself chase and respectable); Offred's obligation is to remain fertile; an obligation to be in the best condition possible for child bearing, child production, child birth; she is obliged to reproduce with her Commander, so that the two people she is "married" to, Fred and Serena, can be kept happy, can get what they want. Mrs. Peters is owned by Mr. Peters so that he may have a clean house, a nice meal, and endless jars of jam stacked in the cupboard. For "having things slicked up" is her duty to her husband (Glaspell 8). Such are the things that women are obliged to do in marriage.

Such are the things that women are obliged to do in marriage, like Clarissa is obliged to wear "a look of extreme dignity" at the possibility of the queen having driven by (as she is aristocratic and wears that burden through her marriage to an official); and like, also, Jasmine is obliged to take care of Bud, despite having never taken a legal oath to him, though they will soon have two children together (Woolf 13). Such is marriage that women have obligations, that women are made inferior, that women are owned by their husbands, forced to fight in small ways against their circumstances.

On An Interview of Caitlin Moran

My sibling, Jenna, and I went to a recording of a podcast tonight. We went to see Tim Minchin, who was interviewing some woman we had never heard of and had little interest in. This is a problem in itself. We went to go see a man. The man was famous. We didn't care to hear from the woman even though it was supposed to be the woman who was primarily talking. There's the issue of the fact that we new who the male celebrity was but we did not know the female celebrity. Caitlin Moran actually addressed the issue during her interview that there are just so many more famous men out there than women - and therefore so many less female role models.

It is refreshing that the format is a man asking a woman her opinions on things. A man encouraging a woman to speak. A man expressing how brilliant he thinks a woman is. A man and a woman equal in regards to one another. They commented on the fact that they were the exact same age and came from a similar left-wing background; this made them the same. They respected each other's opinions and listened to each other's thoughts.

So although Jenna and I went into the situation with a male-centered focus, what we entered was a very level playing field.

One thing that was said during the interview of Caitlin Moran, who I learned, is a feminist journalist, is that as long as women have a choice in dressing like, excuse my word choice, a slut-whore, it is alright for them to dress that way. I take a bit of an issue with this. I would argue, not all that confidently might I add, that women are told by society and men that they must dress and act a certain way, that they must be sexual. I use a story from Eve Ensler's The Vagina Monologues here in which a women is forced by her husband to shave her pubic hair. Her husband, thinking on behalf of and as a result of society, thinks a hairless vagina is sexier. "Many people do not love hair [on vaginas]" the speaker tells us (9). Their couple's therapist perpetuates this negative idea - a woman keeping women down, The Handmaid's Tale-style. The therapist "asked me [the narrator of this story] why I didn't want to please my husband" (10). She describes her shaven vagina as "puffy and exposed," and yet, for a time, she keeps it this way, because this is what her husband perceives to be beautiful. Because this is what he was told was beautiful.

In just the same way, women have been told they have to dress like, here it comes again, slut-whores in order to be beautiful, in order to be valued sexually or otherwise. I do not think it is a situation in which women actually have choice, because I think it comes down to societal beliefs, societal pushing. Women may think they are choosing to dress in a certain way, but if it is the way men and/in society want them to dress, how do we know women are making the choice themselves? It cannot be classified as a choice, I hesitantly believe, if it does not actively fight against the choice others are forcing on you.

But my opinion here is a conversation, like Caitlin Moran said of hers. I am open to being proved wrong.

Women's Fat and the Supposed Dangers of Dieting 3

Upon further reflection, I reaffirmed my belief in dieting. I think it is a healthy choice for me to remain on Weight Watchers. On my mom's side of the family, heavy women and men compose my family. We are built bigger; we have bigger bones. Perpetual weight gain is inevitable if I do not do something to prevent it. My grandpa got so big, doctors told him he was in danger of getting diabetes and so we quickly started walking at the mall to get the weight off. My mother has been on and off Weight Watchers and other dieting programs since she was in college. I have determined that, because of my family history, I should really sort this out while I am young and able, while I have the chance, while I am still thin enough that it is easier. 

When I began Weight Watchers in September, I was a stone above the heaviest side of my healthy weight range. I was technically overweight. Not massively so, but overweight enough that I was concerned. I have made my goal weight smack dab in the middle of the healthy weight range for someone of my age and height. I figure that this will give me some cushioning for when my body wants to being weighing more as I get older, as has happened in my family. This way, if I gain ten pounds, I'll at least be on the edge of my healthy weight, so I will not need to fix this just because it is what society wants. I can be content in that I was built bigger; I can be proud of that, because it's a family trait, and I love my family. 

I worked out with my leader Nicole that if it gets to a point that I do not lose or gain any weight for weeks, that is a sign that my body is not supposed to weigh less, which, in part, accepts Wolf's claim that women's bodies are "programmed to weigh a certain amount" (192). I will not push myself past that point. I am not aiming for Ann Hollander's "'look of sickness, the look of poverty'" (184). I am not engaged in "adolescent starvation;" I am being smart about this (203). 

Although, admittedly, I did not initially begin dieting purely for health reasons. I also wanted to feel better about myself. I had not realized at the time, that it was not me who had to change, but society. Naomi Wolf taught me that. This is why I can now say that I would be accepting of gaining ten pounds later on, if it happened naturally after I met my goal weight or somewhere near it. 

Women's Fat and the Supposed Dangers of Dieting Continued

Even if Naomi Wolf were not on the too thin side of the weight divide, I find it hard to believe "that women may in fact live longer and be generally healthier if they weigh... [more] and they refrain from dieting'" (187). I think that since she has this history being underweight, she sees gaining weight as only being a positive thing. However, there are articles that I found which clearly illustrate that being overweight or obese is a problem. Obviously, Wolf is not encouraging obesity, but I think encouraging weight gain as a hard and fast rule is not the way to handle the problem of women's weight. I will give the author the benefit of the doubt; perhaps in 1990, obesity in women was not a national problem across the United States and the United Kingdom, among other countries. However, in the twenty first century, encouraging weight gain is not the answer, because although there are many women and girls who are unhealthily skinny, there are also women and girls who are unhealthily heavy.

I take Wolf's subtle attack on dieting somewhat personally. As a member of Weight Watchers since September, I do not see dieting as a negative lifestyle change, but rather, a positive one. Wolf claims that women's bodies are "programmed to weigh a certain amount" (192). However, my personal experience throughout my older years proves this false. Looking at my weight from seventh grade to now, it has fluctuated massively. By about tenth grade, I resolved to keep three difficult sizes of clothes in order to combat this: big, medium, and small. Therefore, once again, I do not think Wolf's weight claim is applicable to everyone.

She then goes on to say, quoting Roberta Pollack Seid's research, that dieting "'may indeed cause... obesity itself,'" which I find to be an outdated statement (196). My Weight Watchers leader Nicole recently said at a meeting - and I agree - that the causes of obesity have to do with fast food, increased portion sizes, and decreased movement required for daily tasks, just to name a few. I personally, felt I reached a point where I needed to join Weight Watchers when I realized my portion sizes were too large and I was eating beyond fullness, in addition to making the wrong choices about what food to eat in what amounts. I did not exercise. I think I was eating the wrong things in the wrong amounts and not moving enough to put any of the food to use.

Women's Fat and the Supposed Dangers of Dieting

"'The results of recent studies have suggested that women may in fact live longer and be generally healthier,'" Naomi Wolf recites from Radiance in her book The Beauty Myth, "'if they weigh ten to fifteen percent above the life-insurance figures and they refrain from dieting'" (187). Though I agree with much of what Wolf has to say regarding women's obsession with being thin and so achieving "'the look of sickness, the look of poverty,'" as she cites "fashion historian Ann Hollander in Seeing Through Clothes" as saying, I take issue with a few specific beliefs she has on dieting (184).

Wolf's tragic personal narrative of her battle with anorexia at the age of thirteen, which she calls "adolescent starvation," is heartbreaking, and it brings new light to her reasons for writing the novel (203). It makes the reader even more sympathetic to her cause, even more on her side. The reader, who may have previously been in denial of the beauty myth's affect, sees Wolf as a living example of everything the beauty myth has done to women. However, her personal narrative also gives the reader a new understanding of what side she is coming from and of the extreme degree to which she is on that side. If this book, and the criticisms of diet within it, had been written by a heavier women who shared Wolf's grasp of the beauty myth, I would be more inclined to believe her accusations of diet. In the same way, when the health teacher at my school dismissed the question asked in class, how to lose weight, with "you just eat healthier," I knew she had never dealt with being above a healthy weight before, and therefore her weight suggestions were much less relevant to me. I feel that women who deal with the other side of the problem - being too skinny - do not have an understanding of the position I am coming from, which is, even if not by much, the heavier side. To be fair, I do not understand the too-skinny perspective, but at least, unlike my old health teacher or Wolf, I do recognize that not every women has the problem of weighing too little.

Grandma Interview & Mad Men

While I was watching the TV show Mad Men, I wrote down something Betty said about her mother: "She wanted me to be beautiful so that I could find a man. There's nothing wrong with that." She was referring to her mother's concern with her weight when she was a child. I couldn't help but relate this to my own grandmother and her daughter. While interviewing my grandma, I asked her about my aunt's nose-job. I knew that my grandma had paid for it, and I wanted to hear what my aunt had said to convince her to allow this. As it turns out, the story behind the nose-job, which I have only heard spoken of twice in the family, was different than I imagined. "I encouraged it," my grandma said right away. She explained, "Her nose was like Uncle Barry's was... it was, um, big and crooked, so I encouraged her to do it."I was surprised by this. The same woman who, earlier in the conversation, told me how she would meet with girls in "woman's rights groups" and write letters to "political officials" about woman's issues that were important to her: "about abortion and birth control and jobs". "Woman didn't have very much rights" when she was a kid. She went on to say, "women got paid less than men and didn't have as high positions." I did not understand how she could care about women's rights issues as a teenager, but encourage her daughter's nose-job as a mother. Speaking about motherhood, she told me she "consciously made an effort to treat her [daughter] more equally [to boys]," because she wanted her daughter to have the opportunities woman of her time did not.

Gender equality clearly matters to my grandmother, so how is it that she promoted that my aunt fix her nose? I wonder if she had the same thought Betty and Betty's mother did, that her daughter should be made "beautiful so that... [she] could find a man." Who was the nose-job for? For herself, for other girls, or to impress boys? This links directly with a conversation I had with my mother yesterday during breakfast. She was asking me when I would "grow up" and start wearing makeup. (I can currently count on my hand the number of times I have worn makeup and I am happy to keep it that way; I told her prom and my wedding are the only two times she will likely see me in makeup again.) I identified those three as being the only reasons a heterosexual woman would wear makeup: herself, to impress women in competition, to "find a man." I see makeup and a nose-job both very similarly. Some woman view both as optimizing a woman's beauty. I see them as falsifying a woman's beauty, creating a fake version of herself to fit into society's version of "beauty." The plastic surgery and makeup perpetuate a one sided idea of what is beautiful, so that a woman must be society's idea of "beautiful so that... [she can] find a man."

Jasmine and Karin: Female Competition and Togetherness

(Continued discussion of Jasmine's relationship with women in Bharati Mukherjee's Jasmine)

Karin explains to Jasmine, "'I feel hate for you'" but does not want to (202). "'Help me not to hate you, Jasmine,'" she begs her in an interesting turn of events (203). Karin and Jasmine's competition has been a reoccuring theme since Jasmine arrives in Iowa. When Karin cries, "'I have no way of competing with you!'" it becomes clear that the rivalry between them is mutual (205). This is something we, as readers, could not be sure of before, as we only have insight into Jasmine's thoughts. So, although there is still a clear hatred and tension between the two women, Karin asking Jasmine for help "not to hate" her shows themes of female togetherness and unity (203), like my favourite line in "Wild Geese": "Tell me your despair, yours, and I will tell you mine." This unity, as explained in my previous blog, is common between Jasmine and other women she encounters, such as the village woman in Hasnapur and Wylie in New York City, but it is not expected between Karin and Jasmine. When Karin asks Jasmine this, admitting that she hates her, we see Karin telling Jasmine "her despairs" in the hope that Jasmine will relate to them, so that they can work together to fight this hardship. Karin admits to Jasmine, "'I don't know if I could have nursed him,'" referring to Bud (228). They finally achieve this togetherness Karin hopes for when they gain an understanding of each other's difficulties. This also shows that Jasmine is not the only one comparing herself to the other. There is both competition and female camaraderie between them. When Jasmine is unhappy in this scene, Karin offers to stay with her to comfort her. Karin later comforts Jasmine again, saying "'Don't blame yourself, Jane'" (240). She empathizes with the struggle Jasmine has gone through taking care of Bud and then deciding to put herself first, and they ultimately show themes of togetherness and unity.

This is all to similar to the relationship between the speaker and the giggling "girls with lacy dresses" that she slaps in Andrea Lee's short story "Brothers and Sister Around the World" (Lee 5). She shows the reader that she feels as though she is in competition with the girls throughout the story up until this point, because she is older and made to feel that she is less beautiful than the girls who show more skin than her and receive her husband's attention. She points out that they are "probably about eighteen years old, both good-looking," and when they "burst out laughing," she is sure it is at her (Lee 3). When she slaps "the one with straight hair" she "feel[s] the strange smoothness of her cheek and an instantaneous awareness that my hand is just as smooth" (Lee 4). In other words, she realizes she is just the same as them. She reiterates this: "it is clear we are breathing the same air, now" (Lee 6). Later, "[b]oth girls look straight at me," showing they now respect the speaker (Lee 6). She responds to the girls in "my politest voice," showing she respects the girls as well (Lee 7). The three people realize they have gone through the same thing as women, and so they must unite, just like Jasmine and Karin.

Jasmine's Relationships with Women

Jasmine does not seem to interact much with women. Back when she was Jyoti, she listened to the village women as "[t]hey squatted in a row and gossiped" (54) during "'Ladie's Hour'"(55). "The women's strategy was to stick together," Jasmine tells us (55). Oddly enough, this is comparable Jasmine's relationship with Wylie. Wylie explains to Jasmine that they are "family; in a family don't sisters sometimes fight?" she adds (178). There is a feeling of togetherness between these women that can be related to my favourite line in Mary Oliver's poem "Wild Geese": "Tell me your despair, yours, and I will tell you mine." The idea of female togetherness and unity among women through difficulty is found in both parts of Jasmine's life. In Hasnapur, Jasmine and the other women "stick together" in order to avoid the "perverts from the village across the stream [who] sat on their bank and ogled at" them (55). In New York City with Wylie, they are united by the difficulty that Wylie faces: first, in that her daughter Duff considers Jasmine her "mummy" (instead of just a "day mummy") and secondly, when Wylie decides to leave Taylor (178). Jasmine's relationship with these women are rooted in a feeling of togetherness in that they are all women. Wylie can confide in Jasmine, because she is a women, a "sister" in the fight against problems, and the women from Hasnapur are bonded by fighting against problems as well; they want protection against men, safety from the "wild geese."

Jasmine has only had positive experiences with other women; she has close relationships with them, as we see from these two examples. However, when it comes to Bud's ex-wife Karin, a side of Jasmine comes out that we, as readers, have not seen before. When Jasmine and Karin encountered each other in the supermarket, Karin catches Jasmine "reaching for an apple pie," (195-196) and thinks, "She must have baked them from scratch for Bud" when they were married (196). This is the first moment we glimpse competition between these two women. It shows Jasmine's criticism of herself. Whenever she competes with Karin, comparing herself to Bud's ex-wife, she puts herself down. This is shown again when Jasmine says, "Karin would have read the signals" when Harlan was going to shoot Bud, pointing to the fact that Jasmine did not (198). This behaviour is something we haven't seen among women yet in the book, but is very common in The Handmaid's Tale where competition among Handmaid is based largely on fertility, pregnancy, and then providing a healthy child. Instead, in Jasmine, women - except, clearly, for Karin and Jasmine's relationship - seem to bond with one another and be close-knit, just like the women in Hasnapur during "'Ladie's Hour'"(55) and the "sisters" Wylie and Jasmine (178). 

Downton Abbey, The Handmaid's Tale, and Jasmine

(Continued discussion of Violet Crawley's statement from Downton Abbey related to Bharati Mukherjee's Jasmine; continued discussion of connections between Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale and Bharati Mukherjee's Jasmine, a sequence)

Jane and Prakash work together to fix a VCR, causing Prakash to joke they should "'open our own store someday'" and call it "'Vijh & wife,'" a play on the store "'Jagtiani and Son'" that Prakash works at (89). "'Maybe even Vijh & Vijh,'" he adds, showing that he is willing to treat his wife equally, giving her freedom and independence (89). He does not own her; their store would not be run by Prakash Vijh and his wife but by Prakash Vijh and Jasmine Vijh, two separate individuals. This is Prakash's belief: that women should have an identity separate from that of their husband, that women should have independence.

Jane does not appear to agree with this, however. She says that she and Prakash "lived for our fantasy. Vijh & Wife," showing that she does not mind being owned (89). While her husband strongly believes in women's independence, she is content being grouped with him, not an individual person.

She goes on to call their hypothetical shop "Vijh & Sons," which shows her desire to have children (89). This craving for children is not shared with Prakash. When Jane expresses she wants "to get pregnant," Prakash always responds, "'We aren't going to spawn'" (77). He explains that "[i]t was up to the women to resist" the desire for pregnancy, with a tone very much resembling the idea of women empowerment that both Moira and Offred's mother share (77 - 78).

Pitaji, Jane's father, does not share this belief in women empowerment. He suggests all women are good for is bearing children when he says the only reason his daughter should continue her education "'is that bright ladies are bearing bright sons,'" explaining, "'that is nature's design'" (51). Jane retorts that she wants to be a doctor, causing her father to scream, "'The girl is mad,'" which suggests women do not deserve independence and individual identities - the opposite of what Prakash believes (51).  Dida suggests Pitaji "'[b]lame it on the mother. Insanity has to come from somewhere. It's the mother who is mad'" (51). This suggests just what those of The Handmaid's Tale's Gilead believe: that motherhood is a women's only role.

An additional parallel to Jasmine's illustration of India to The Handmaid's Tale's Gilead is that female fertility and pregnancy are very valued. Offred and Jane both buy into this idea. However, Prakash does not. This is another example in which, despite their recent marriage, Jane and Prakash do not agree despite Downton Abbey's Violet Crawley suggestion that they should.

Downton Abbey and Jasmine

I was watching the show Downton Abbey which takes place in 1914, where Lady Mary Crawley expressed that her sister, Sybil, who the family has just learned attended a suffragette canvasing, "is entitled to her opinions." In response, her grandmother, Violet Crawley, said something I found rather striking and quite relevant to Bharati Mukherjee's Jasmine: "No, she isn't until she is married, then her husband will tell her what her opinions are." Pitaji's cousin seems to agree with Violet Crawley, saying "that big-city men prefer us village girls because we... have no minds of our own. Village girls are like cattle; whichever way you lead them, that is the way they will go" (46).

At first glance, Jane's opinions seem to be based purely on her husband's. Prakash expresses to Jane that he "wants for us to go away and have a real life" (81). Jane responds: "'All right,' I said, 'if you want me to have a real life I want it too'" (81). This shows Jane conforming to her husband's views very quickly. Like Violet Crawley said, Prakash "tell[s] her what her opinions are" and she accepts it.

Earlier on, Jane shows that she can form her own opinions. However, this is before her marriage to Prakash. She says, "I couldn't marry a man who didn't speak English, or at least who didn't want to speak English," an opinion that her mother, father, brothers, and sisters certainly did not force on her, as they do not share it (68). This statement disproves Violet Crawley's belief that a girl should not have her own opinion until "her husband... tell[s] her what her opinions are." It shows that Jane did have her own thoughts prior to her marriage to Prakash. It also shows women do not necessarily go "whichever way you lead them," but instead, they sometimes lead in their opinions (46).

Prakash's aunt shows that she does not agree with Violet Crawley's statement. When Jane and her husband do not live with his family, "his aunt wept, 'Your wife is so fancy that our place isn't good enough for her?'" (76). This shows that Prakash's aunt believes that Jane can form her own opinion about whether or not she would like to live with Prakash's family. She is, in fact, under the impression that the decision to live in an apartment instead of in Prakash's family home is not her nephew's but is, instead, Jane's.

The Handmaid's Tale and Jasmine

The first connection I saw between The Handmaid's Tale and Jasmine was when Jane relates her current life to her past life, just as Offred often does in her narration. Jane comments on Scott's "perfect teeth," saying, "I envy him his teeth... [because w]e had no dentist in Hasnapur" (19). This novel, like The Handmaid's Tale, is told non-linearly, and so both narrators dip in and out of past and present.

It becomes clear that Bud is living his life, although now divorced and handicapped, close to how he lived it before, whereas Jane and Du's lives change drastically as they have to escape. This is similar to Commanders' lives and the lives of all other roles, but namely the Handmaids. This fact about Jane's family made me think of the moment the Commander gives Offred a magazine, even though she "thought such magazines had all been destroyed" (152). For Offred, these magazines are destroyed, because she is forced to change her life drastically, like Jane and Du. Even though the Handmaids remained in the same place, with Offred still in the same town that she lived in with her husband and daughter, their lives still are undeniably altered as Gilead society begins to take over. For the Commander, however, just like Bud, life is much closer to being the same as it had been.

Du and Jane conform to their new society in Iowa, just as Offred begrudgingly conforms to Gilead. Even though they all keep aspects of their past with them in their thoughts, they keep those thoughts silent. The difference between these characters' conformation is that Du and Jane comply with society's demands by choice, because they want to fit in, while Offred goes along with Gilead due to the powerlessness of her position.

Jane's father and Offred both live in the past. (43)

Flowers (Continued)

(Continued discussion of flowers in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, a sequence)


Fast forwarding about a hundred pages to what stands out as being a very flower-centered scene, Offred decides to steal a flower from the vase in Serena Joy's living room. "A withered daffodil... will soon be thrown out," she says, so she sees no harm in stealing it (109). She discusses pressing it under her mattress to leave as a present for the next Handmaid that will have her room, which reminds me of the "print of flowers" at the very beginning of the story, because both of the flowers are flattened (17). This, perhaps, symbolizes the fact that the Handmaid's have a very slim chance of producing children, because the flower is crushed, dead. The "withered daffodil... [that] will soon be thrown out" symbolizes the same thing (109). It yields the image of a “withered” womb, shriveled up and unable to produce children (106). The flowers also symbolize the Handmaids themselves and the fact that their inability to produce healthy offspring will not be tolerated; it could end in death or possibly becoming an Unwomen.


But if flowers represent these negative things, why would Offred want to steal it? I understand her need to steal something is because she wants a small piece of power, and she wants to get back at the system in small ways. But what is the purpose of stealing a flower, specifically? Since flowers represent children, who, as I have expressed in previous blogs, are the key to power in this society, could her need to steal a flower just be a reiteration of her want for more power? Or it could be her want for children, because they are so rare and so desired in society? But what really stumps me is the fact that the flower is described as "withered," seeming to symbolize Handmaids and their inability to produce children (109). Why would Offred want to steal what is metaphorically herself? I would understand if Offred would want to steal her whole life back, because in her previous life, she could produce children - the daughter she misses so much. However, in her old life, there were no “withered daffodil[s];” people could produce children without problem – Offred seems to have had no difficulty there (109). Therefore, Offred’s inclination to steal a flower does not represent her yearning for her old life. Perhaps Offred stealing a dying flower is symbolic of her trying to return to the way society used to be, rather than return to her child. Their old society has "withered" now, and Offred wanting to press the flower to save it for the next Handmaid is her way of reminding the next Handmaid of what society used to be like (109). It is her way of making sure that people do not forget about what once was, just as the previous Handmaid presumably tried to do for Offred when she carved the Latin phrase in her room. 

Flowers

"Flowers are stilled allowed," Offred tells us early on in her tale (17). When returning to this quote to write a journal entry about Margaret Atwood's use of flowers, I realized how odd it is that flowers are allowed often for decorations. On the same page, there is mention of "a print of flowers" (17), and just a couple pages later, Offred describes "a fanlight of cloured glass: flowers, red and blue" (19). This made it a little more clear. Red and blue are the colours of the Handmaids and the Wives, respectively, the only two types of women who can reproduce in society. There must be a reason that these two colours are mentioned in relation to the flowers - reproduction. Flowers symbolize growth and life, because of the image we have of flowers growing from seeds and then blossoming. Therefore, it is not difficult to make the leap that these flowers symbolize the growth and life of children.

So, back to the question of why the flowers are used as decoration: they are placed all over the house as subliminal messaging for the Handmaids and the Wives to encourage them to reproduce. Aunt Lydia told the Handmaids, "Think of yourself as seeds" in what was described as a "conspiratorial" way (28). The women are seeds, because it is their job to produce flowers, AKA children. Think of flowers pollinating to create more flowers or seeds producing flowers.

But just before Aunt Lydia tells the Handmaids to consider themselves seeds, she tells them "Some of you are shallow-rooted" (28). Why would they be shallow-rooted if they are supposed to be flowers? Flowers cannot grow if they are shallow-rooted. I think this shows the state their underpopulated society is in. Many of the Handmaids have the potential to produce children, but so many are not. I suppose this is still like pollinating flowers. Dandelions, for example, rely on the wind to help distribute their seeds, but many of these seeds do not land where they can properly grow. Perhaps they land in a place with shallow soil, where they will end up shallow-rooted. Anyway, they have to throw something at the wall and hope something sticks. The fact that they are shallow-rooted shows that many of them have the potential to produce children, but so many do not.

Positives and Negatives to Women's Roles

The hierarchy in The Handmaid's Tale is much less clear than a hierarchy throughout history or in a different society. In a hierarchy that we are used to, everyone envies those at the top of the pecking order, because they have definitive qualities that make them more desirable than any other class. In the society within the novel that is not the case. Each role has distinct pros and cons for the women. 

As discussed in the previous blog, the Wives are the first in the line of feminine power, for one thing. They get the children at the end of the deal, provided their Handmaid's produce healthy babies, and children are like money in our society, they are a sign of power. This is all well and good, but at the same time, the Wives have to watch their husbands having sex with another women; they have to be in the same bed while it is happening, assisting the entire operation. This is a huge emotional negative and must be very difficult to live through. 

The Handmaids are one of the few people who can actually have sex in society. However, this sex involves no choice. It is not for pleasure or love. Instead, it is out of necessity; it is forced. It is, in a way, government-backed rape. But at the same time, if they do become pregnant, they have achieved their government-imposed life goal. Plus, as shown in the blog post before with Janine, they become prized possessions, but they are just that: possessions. Regardless of whether or not they produce children, they are owned by their Commander and his Wife. 

Marthas are not permitted to have sex at all. They are looked down upon in many ways, because they are infertile. In some ways they are made to feel useless to society. They must aid someone else in having sex and getting pregnant, the two things they are not able to do. This must be hard, but at the same time, they are not forced to go through something they do not want to, with a person they do not love, as the Handmaids are. They live comparatively normal lives, although they have to return to stereotypically feminine roles: cooking and cleaning and taking care of the Handmaid as if she is a child in some ways, such as when Offred needs assistance bathing.

Aunts are also not permitted to have sex and are essentially brainwashing those who will become Handmaids. But if they believe what they are teaching, they could possibly have the best lives of all other female roles.

Hierarchy (Continued)

(Continued discussion of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale pages 104 - 150, a sequence)

Despite this hierarchy, there is a huge interdependency within the house, which is not seen in a typical hierarchical system. Everyone relies on each other to fulfill their given duty so that the Handmaid can produce a healthy child. Without the Marthas keeping the house, the Guardians keeping the house safe, and the Wife acting as a disciplinarian as well as being there to assist the actual sex, the Commander and the Handmaid would not be able to reproduce.

There is also a huge reliance of the entire household on the Handmaid. Society relies on the Handmaid to produce children, because of the ever-pressing issue of being underpopulated. Additionally, everyone in the house depends on if the Handmaid can provide a healthy child in order to move up the social scale. In this way, there is a hierarchy within the hierarchy. Within your class, you move up and down in a way that determined by your Handmaid's child production. This was clear when Janine, the Handmaid who was pregnant at the time, walked around protected by two Guardians. Janine was given much more freedom once she was severely pregnant. She was also very envied by all the women - Wives, Handmaids, and Marthas alike - for her pregnancy. Wives who receive a healthy child from their Handmaids go up the ladder as well, because children are such rare occurrences and therefore heavily valued. It was also mentioned that Janine's Commander would receive a promotion because of his ability to impregnate someone with a healthy child.

Hierarchy

It becomes obvious from the beginning that there is a hierarchy within The Handmaid's Tale. Among the men, the Commander is the most powerful and most important role that we, as readers, are currently aware of. Everyone who is not a commander is owned by the Commander. Following this, there are Angels and then Guardians. Among the women, Commander's Wives are the most powerful. The Handmaids are next in the hierarchy, followed by Marthas. There are also Aunts, who, like Angels, do not exactly fit in the same hierarchy. And below everyone in importance and power are the Unwomen.

This is all true, on the basic level. However, as one reads on, one realizes the complexity of the hierarchy that is not initially apparent. For one thing, there is a difference between the hierarchy of power and the hierarchy of importance. In terms of power, the Commander and his Wife stand at the top, ignoring, of course, people within the government that have not been introduced to the reader. However, the Handmaid is by far the most important role in society - more powerful, I would say, than the government itself, because she provides society with offspring, which is the more valuable than anything in this underpopulated world. The Commander is the second most important role, because he is the only male allowed to impregnate women, and so he is, obviously, also required to provide children.

The Wife is next important, because she is married to the Commander and is still fertile. The Handmaid's importance and the Wife's power are illustrated by the placement of the Commander's Wife on the Birthing Stool when Janine was giving birth. The wife sits "behind and above Janine" (135). This represents all Wives relationships with their Handmaids. They are behind their Handmaid in importance to society, but they are above in the power that they hold. During the birthing, "Janine is framed by her [Wife]," showing that Janine is so important that she is framed, but also that the Wife is so powerful she circles around the Handmaid and could close in on her at any moment (135).

Everyone else contributes to the population through their aiding of the Commander, his Wife, and his Handmaid. All classes are centered around making these three roles as comfortable as possible and making it more possible for them to conceive, as this is the most essential piece of their society, what everything is based on.

Mundane Motherhood

The sentence "Maybe it's just something to keep the Wives busy, to give them a sense of purpose," in chapter three of Margaret Atwood's novel The Handmaid's Tale, says quite a bit about people's views of the role of and importance of women (23). It implies women are only good for or good at activities such as knitting scarves. Certainly the fact that the reader has only been shown the Commander's Wife smoking or knitting does not make a good case for the importance of women not only in the household, but also in society. The speaker's suggestion that the Wife did not even put the scarfs to use, "but [instead] unravelled and turned [them] back into balls of yarn, to be knitted again in their turn" further insinuates the uselessness of women.

The concept of "keep[ing] the Wives busy" reminds me of my mother and her friends the school year we lived in Hong Kong (23). She joined a women's group as, for the first time since my sister was born, she was not working. They did, as my mom was told, "anything to waste time while their husbands were at work." Similarly, while on holiday in Ireland this break, we started talking to a lovely woman with two children, a toddler Brian and a baby Robin, who told us she usually meet her friends who have toddlers down at the beach where we were "for a milk run" every afternoon "just to give us mothers something to do to waste time." A "milk run" or a women's group dumpling making class are just the same as spending the day knitting scarves that may not even be used or, as the speaker says on page 22, needed: they are ways for women to waste time, which hardly seems like an action for a position of importance.

During a conversation with my mother and my aunt yesterday, my mom described the mundane life of a stay at home mother. Both my aunts on my dad's side stay at home with their three and four children. My mother discussed how she could never stay home as her sister in laws do, because she never felt like she was accomplishing anything. Working as a teacher, at the end of every school day, she says she can see the progress her students are making. The same cannot be said of motherhood on a daily scale. She told me she was tired of picking up the same toys four times in one day. However, Serena Joy does not show the same frustration with the mundane life of knitting the same scarves. Though knitting, the speaker explains, provide the Wives "a sense of purpose" my mother felt dumpling making classes and clearing toys did not give her enough of a purpose (23). 

"[S]mall goals that can be easily attained" are not fulfilling (23); they do not make a woman feel important in what they do even though the speaker feels great pride her in "small achievement, to make oranges happened" (35). I am interested to see if Serena Joy, the Commander's Wife, feels an absense in her life due to the mundaneness, similar to what my mother felt, or is content with knitting scarves - the life of my aunts. 

Being a Second Class Women

(Continued discussion of Adrienne Rich's "Power" and Mary Oliver's "Wild Geese," a sequence)

As I looked closer, I realized there are many feminine words or phrases in "Wild Geese." I am going to embrace right now that I am being very stereotypical, but I think this is necessary for the piece to see it's connection to women. Phrases like "soft animal" and "love what it loves" seem girly. The first examples makes one think of a soft, cuddly toy. The second example seems to be female-focused because it is love based, which is often associated with women. The line, "Tell me about your despair, yours, and I will tell you mine," is feminine, because it is generally considered a female characterist to be nurturing and overemotional. Words such as "clean" stereotypically make one think of a women cleaning. "Family" connotes females, as does "pebble," because it is a euphony, which is softer and more feminine.

I thought about other ways this poem could be related to women. This is a Women's Literature class, after all. Then I realized, who was "you" directed to? I suggested to the class that this poem was addressing women. It made perfect sense. Women "do not have to be good," they just have to fit "in the family of things" - "family" being the structure of men and women. They have to act as second class citizens. This is why Oliver implied that our actions do not matter. Women "do not have to be good," because whether they are good or bad, they are still second to men.

But what, then, was the purpose of the cacophonous words such as "harsh" and the repetition of "the wild geese," Alex S asked? "The wild geese" are men. The image of these animals "head home again" are to remind the reader of men stereotypically returning home after work. They call to women in a "harsh" way, "announcing your place in the family of things."This means they are imposing their male-driven society on women. They are forcing women, as I said earlier, into second class citizenship. This is the reason for the line "Tell me about your despair, yours, and I will tell you mine." Women's discussion with each other about feelings is their only escape from the men, "the wild geese." They are trying to save each other from this inferiority cast upon them.

The line about sharing despair with one another in "Wild Geese" has an almost identical line in "Power." The phrase "melancholy a tonic/ for living on this earth" suggests and universality to melancholy and despair, as well as a universality to sharing this depression and hopelessness with one another as an escape mechanism.

In the final stanza of "Power," "she" and "her" are mentioned four times. One would initially assume these feminine pronouns refer to Marie Curie, as she is the focus of the previous stanza and no other women are mentioned. However, I would argue, in the same logic of "you" being intended for women, "she" and "her" are referring to all women as well. The repeated mention of "her wounds" suggests that all women have wounds, made clear by both Rich and Oliver in their discussions of "despair" and "melancholy." The final word, "power," suggests that women try to gain power in society. This issue was brought up by Mary Oliver, who said "the wild geese... announc[ed women's] ... place in the family of things."

Being Present, Making an Impact

When first reading "Power" by Adrienne Rich and "Wild Geese" by Mary Oliver, I saw no connection of these poems to women's literature. I saw "Wild Geese" is telling the reader to be present, through the line, "Meanwhile the world goes on." I think this line perfectly summarizes the poem. It doesn't matter if you are good or bad, just "let the soft animal of your body love what it loves," and the world will go on uninfluenced by your presence, it says.

"Power," on the other hand, is very focused on the past, looking at the death of Marie Curie. The image of the "perfect a hundred-year-old" medicine bottle that is discovered suggests that it has left an impact on the earth, because a hundred years later, it is still there. In fact, it is even more valuable now than it was then. It's impact is even greater; it has grown in importance, just like Marie Curie. Her work in science is still impactful and very important now despite her death. In spite of Rich's discussion of denial, suffering, and death, the poem is more upbeat than Oliver's in that it suggests our actions matter, while Oliver does not. Need I remind you of her poem's most important line, "Meanwhile the world goes on"? The phrase could easy be followed with "no matter what you do."

"Meanwhile the world goes on" also suggests to the reader that you be aware, be aware of "the sun and the clear pebbles of rain, [of] ...the landscapes... the deep trees, the mountains and the rivers." This awareness of nature and the world around you is deeply connected to being present. However, it is clear that Oliver is suggesting presence still does not make an impact on the world, because the best anyone can do is observe. There are no Marie Curies in "Wild Geese;" there are observers and not doers.

Marie Curie "let the soft animal of [her] ... body love what it loves" and died because of it. "Wild Geese" would say "the world goes on," but "Power" suggests that her love for science left an impact on the scientific world today.