Additionally, there was a large segment of the piece regarding lesbianism. It was interesting to read how people can view lesbians in one context and approve, while in another, the opposite view is taken. For example, the husband doesn't mind looking at "phony lesbians" in the context of porn- in fact, it's kind of a forbidden fantasy, something that really captures his attention. However, when his wife is reading to him, he accuses the author of being a "dyke" and basically says all her words are discredited because of her supposed sexual orientation. This struck me as one of the double binds that Frye talked about- what are women allowed to say or be in certain circumstances.
Another example of the double bind is when the husband is looking forward in life and imagines that he can no longer be with his wife. Because she spoke her mind, she isn't sexually attractive to him anymore. But if she didn't speak her mind, she wouldn't be true to herself. She doesn't have a good option at this point.
Also in that paragraph, the husband thinks, "He feels oppressed by her incipient struggle, and feels somehow as if her struggle to change the pleasure he has enjoyed is a violation of his rights." This goes back to Frye's point that people can struggle and suffer and have aspects of oppression present in their lives, without truly being oppressed. I feel that this is an example of that. He had one bar of the bird cage placed in front of him... she lived with all the bars. Back to microscopic vs. macroscopic views of oppression.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment