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.