Feminism

I have never experienced much disabilities being a women; the society I live in has never been overly advantageous to men. However these two short stories that also talk about women have some sticking features of society that used to think of women as merely a trophy or an object.

Jeannie is raped by a man and she is heart-broken because the man seemed to hate her. Instead of taking aggressive action on the man, she tries to hide from her issues such as moving away from town. Also, her compulsion that she should be loved by all of society is the main reason of her stress. Jeannie symbolizes the portraits of women of those days when women don’t create their own value but is valued by others as merely an object. Just like a dollhouse, Jeannie doesn’t consider herself as a person who has a right to be shameful or angry of the rape accident but a doll that is not loved by someone, a failure.

Another absurdity comes when all the fault of being raped comes to Jeannie herself. When Jeannie defends herself that she was just taking a walk, Mrs. Thompson scrutinizes, saying,

"In high heels? With a purse on your arm, and a hat on your head? You don't go taking a walk in the bush that way. There's no place to walk to. Where'd you think you were going? I could smell Evening in Paris a quarter mile away.”

…

"You could have cleaned up your home a bit. There was always that to do."

The criticism about Jeannie’s clothes provokes some thoughts on KMLA rules too. The reason why KMLA doesn’t allow short pants or even ordinary skirts for girls even in stifling summer days come from the reason that we are living with boys too and it disturbs the study-atmosphere, causing distraction to fellow students and staff. To be girly, fancy and pretty is a desire of ordinary women that is not aimed to seduce other men, but this desire is trampled because it seemingly disturbs men. Doesn’t this rule also mean that we are putting men’s problem in front of women’s ordinary desire? Instead of wearing burka, shouldn’t we just teach men that there are nothing in correlation between “I want sex” and skirts? There was a campaign about women-rape months ago with a phrase

“You raped her because her clothes provoked you? I should break your face because your stupidity provokes me.”

“My short skirt is not an invitation/a provocation/an indication/ that I want it or that I give it… my short skirt, believe it or not, has nothing do with you.”

The actions of these two women provoke the thoughts of the readers that somehow, they are not human being but a doll that should be loved by all, that does not hold any value themselves but should be price-tagged.

 In contrast, Prue deals with her quotidian problem in other way: passiveness. She has some similarities with the above two women characters that she views herself as minor character of her life. From the main story-line of how Gordon meets with the woman waiting at the door, she only hears the crash and the female voice; she is the sideline of the main story, the audience of an absurd act (From lemonhound). She is merely an ornament of Gordon, the safety net and nearly worthless when Gordon’s in love with other woman. However different from the above two characters: Jeannie and Mrs. Thompson, she is well-aware of her and Gordon’s absurdity and passes it away dismissively.

“I think he was afraid I was going to laugh. He doesn’t know why people laugh or throw their overnight bags at him, but he’s noticed they do”

From the eye of Prue, we clearly see how she is the least important of Gordon’s life, (even crème brulee is more important than her) but she passes it away. The passiveness can also be seen in how she treats the tobacco tin. She puts the object that is the reminder of the nonsense of it all and forgets it. Chris Gilmore from lemonhound stated that this is exactly how Gordon treats Prue: he objectifies, dismisses, and forgets Prue. However, I think this action takes greater meaning in how Prue treats her quotidian events. She has all the reason to be angry, regretful or pitiful of the events yet she stays away from the events as if she’s the audience of her life, dismisses it and forgets about it. 

Anton Chekhov

 ‘The Student’ was an interesting read because it had so many ways to interpret the story. The story is as if it’s enclosed by a thick fog. You never really know the exact reason why the old widow cried or why this student suddenly preaches on these widows or if this is the happy ending or not. So for the first time I read it, I was confused. I didn’t get why Anton Chekhov had to leave everything ambiguous and ends it so abruptly with no explanation. However, that was also a strange charm of this quizzical short story. It leaves numerous interpretations, and it was one of the main reasons why I began to reread and began to appreciate the story.

 I believe the ultimate massage of the story is cynical, rather than optimistic. At the second paragraph, it’s stated that “~ in the days of Rurik and in the time of Ivan the Terrible and Peter, and in their time there had been just the same desperate poverty and hunger, the same thatched roofs with holes in them, ignorance, misery, the same desolation around, the same darkness, the same feeling of oppression -- all these had existed, did exist, and would exist, and the lapse of a thousand years would make life no better.” The story starts with the big idea that the past and the present is linked with the same desperate poverty and hunger and will exist even after thousand years. After the preaching, the old widow cries and he realizes the message –

"The past," he thought, "is linked with the present by an unbroken chain of events flowing one out of another." And it seemed to him that he had just seen both ends of that chain; that when he touched one end the other quivered.

 From the first paragraph, it is already initiated that the past and the present is unpleasantly linked, and will so forever. What the student realizes in the end is also the similar message. The past is linked with the present and just like the time of Ivan the Terrible and Peter, Russians were desperate, miserable and sorrowful. Even when the student becomes joyful after realizing the message, it doesn’t mean the hopeful future for Russians. The last paragraph describes the scene: towards the west where the cold crimson sunset lay a narrow streak of light. The sun sets in the west, and the narrow streak of light is what the student saw, what would be vanished inside total darkness of the night.

 After I read the story, I thought the student was stupid. I believe student can’t really preach to the widows in this way. Of course, the older widow cried but the younger widow clearly hates him. The widows may have unspeakable backgrounds or experiences more than the student, yet the student brags his knowledge about “Jesus” and becomes proud after learning a message that the future and the past is linked, thus future would be miserable just like the past. Sometimes, the learned ones are the most stupid in the society. They talk about theories, life-living methods or some cool background knowledge but they are neither really helpful nor adequately targeted for audiences. Even in the stories, the student think he’s preached the widows well but maybe widows interpreted the Jesus story in completely different aspect. Maybe older widow just became guilty because she recalled hitting her daughter. This is a slightly different message student probably wanted to teach. I believe Anton Chekhov tried to leave the message in the story that the educated people can be the smartest, but maybe not the wisest. They interpret the society and their effects in their own way and may lose the realistic interpretation of their life.