The Myth of Woman

With the re-release of Titanic, I figured blogging about the Myth of Woman would be a great thing to do.

In the movie, Rose is being forced to live a high society life all because her mother can't let go of her upper-class lifestyle. Rose's fiancé, Cal, is the biggest jerk ever, her mother is a selfish and cold woman, the people they entertain themselves with are snobby and fake, and Rose feels as if her life is "an endless parade of parties and cotillions." At one point Rose's mother remarks, "The purpose of university is to find a suitable husband. Rose has already done that." Rose, who is an articulate, bright, determined young woman, is denied freedom and an education... she's being forced into a mold that 1912 society as placed upon women in her position. Anyway, I digress...
  
[According to the Myth of Woman] Women Are:

• inscrutable
• mysterious
• "natural"
• silent
• irrational, instinctive
• beautiful

I'm no feminist, but women do not need men to steer them in life. We aren't irrational or silent... at least not silent anymore. Rose certainly is not. For example, when the men at her table are talking about how they're so happy that Titanic is so gigantic, Rose retorts with something along the lines of "Are you aware of the theories of Freud, Mr. Ismay? His theories about the male preoccupation with size may be of particular interest to you." As it turns out, Ismay has no idea who Freud is, so the insult is totally lost on him. Like I said, Rose is smart. And witty. Also, we are only as mysterious as men want us to be. Maybe they don't/didn't find us important enough to really contemplate, or maybe they didn't see us as anything complex enough to have dimensions. The fact is, the myth that Simone de Beauvoir proposes really is true. I think it is especially clear in movies/books about women's insecurities/unhappiness/disillusionment in the 50s and 60s. Although Richard Yates's book Revolutionary Road is about the disillusionment of an entire family, I think it's an important book and movie about the fragility and complexity of the female mind (although April, in my opinion, isn't exactly sane...)

As for the Sleeping Beauty myth, I think that April Wheeler in Revolutionary Road and for Rose DuWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet chooses the best roles!) in Titanic did wake up from a dream when they were kissed. I think their dreams were nightmares though. Just because a woman finds out that a man loves her, it doesn't mean that all of life's problems go away, that she is going to devote herself body and soul to her new beau, that all of her previous hopes and dreams are now invalid. I think that used to be the male mentality, and it probably still is to a certain extent because that's what we girls tend to swoon over in movies. It's unrealistic unless the girl's a total pushover. I think it's important to remember that a woman is made of layers, not unlike Shrek, and she isn't going to magically be whole when a man steps into the picture and carries her over the threshold. We have our own logical reasons for doing things, even if men think they're stupid or "irrational." Really, though, if we're so irrational, why can't a man just stop and ask for directions instead of driving around for hours? If that's not illogical, I don't know what is. Especially since gas is nearing $4 a gallon.

The Author Isn't Dead...

I think Roland Bathes's idea that the author is dead and context shouldn't matter is completely and utterly idiotic. No disrespect to Mr. Barthes as I do understand from where his ideas on this topic come from, but I think reading a piece without any knowledge about the author or context would make an accurate reading nearly impossible... unless, of course, the author had written the piece to be read without such knowledge.

Take for example... The Bell Jar, one of my favorites. While one is certainly able to just pick up The Bell Jar at random and begin reading it, it wouldn't be possible to fully understand the meaning of it without at least considering the historical context of the novel. Why would Esther be so hesitant to get married? Why is she so eager to rebel, to release her sexual tension? If the reader didn't know anything about life for women in the 1950s-60s, that women who were often the ideal housewives were unhappy and trapped, how would they fully comprehend Esther's need to break through the social constructs that (help to) encase her in the bell jar? Also, Sylvia Plath's life itself is an important contextual factor. The Bell Jar is autobiographical, and full appreciation/comprehension of the novel is definitely dependent upon Sylvia's struggle with her inner demons and depression.

 Oh, Animal Farm... what on earth is that about? Without knowing something about George Orwell or the time in which he lived, Animal Farm would seem totally ridiculous. Talking pigs? Animals overtaking a farm? The pigs becoming the leaders of the entire farm? What?

And then there's Picasso's "Guernica." To the naked eye, "Guernica" looks like a bunch of mangled images. A horse, an eye with a lightbulb pupil, an arm with a broken sword, a floating ghostly head. It's a lot more than that, of course, but who would know unless you did a little research?

So, Roland Barthes... what were you thinking? Yeah, books standing alone may have their own meanings (and sometimes the wrong ones), but the meanings are so much stronger with all the background information.


Context... it's important.