Assault or Love

In “No Name Woman” by Maxine Hong Kingston, she illustrates the struggles present while being raised in a traditional Chinese family. The narrator is an American-Chinese woman who has a family that still resides in China. She is told a story about her aunt to whom her father does not speak about. This story illustrated a struggle that not only is present in traditional Chinese villages but in modern societies across the globe.  She is taken advantage of by a man and is left to bare his child alone and shamed. By being raped and becoming pregnant while not married has shamed the family to the point where she is not even considered part of it let alone a person. Men maintained a tremendous amount of power and exploited women with no remorse. Being brought up to obey men, her aunt “ always did as she was told”, even if it meant to shame her honor (Kingston 6). This topic is evident in the present day with adultery, rape, and sexual abuse. This not only still shames them in their family, but in society as well. As the narrator talks of the tragedy that happened to her aunt, she could not stop mentioning how disgraced her father was. I think the showed how tight knit the Chinese families were and how they truly believed in traditions and purity. They were in charge of continuing the family name and maintaining the same traditions that were passed onto them.

Rape is as present now as it was in China where the aunt’s story takes place. Men overpower women and sexually assault them for satisfaction and dominating power. Threats such as “if you tell your family, I’ll beat you. I’ll kill you” are still a psychological deterrent from turning in ones attacker (7). Although this is not the woman’s fault, she has become a victim and ultimately an outcast who has been forced against her will to perform acts. When a child is conceived through these acts it becomes and even greater problem due to its involuntary nature. There are also cases where people develop adulterous relationships and happen who conceive a child. This poses another threat to the family and to society and it is a terrible act. This act changes from rape to plain old cheating but masking the byproduct, a child, of the relationship is the hardest part. Conception requires two people and if one is not present the questions begin to arise. Threats, bribes, and love can deter people from reveling someone’s identity but the woman is usually the one who takes the brunt of the humiliation.

I believe though after finishing the short story, that the narrators aunt truly loved the person who she was having sex with. When she says, “ She kept the man’s name to herself throughout her labor and dying”, it shows that either shame or affection were present (11). Had she wanted to tarnish his name, she would have come out and said it. She was hiding it to hide the true identity of her lover. The intro raid was the only thing that contradicted my thought, but maybe the feeling was not mutual. The man who is responsible for the baby is trying to cover himself by instilling fear. Any form of sexual assault has an oppressor and oppressed, the narrator’s aunt was the oppressed.  

Art Exhibit

“What a million filaments.

The peanut-crunching crowd Shoves in to see

Them unwrap me hand and foot--

The big strip tease.

Gentlemen, ladies

These are my hands My knees.

I may be skin and bone, Nevertheless, I am the same, identical woman.”

This was a couple of stanzas that really stuck out to me in Sylvia Plath's poem “Lady Lazarus.” For starters, what does this particular part mean to you? The way I perceived it is that she is obviously being viewed at as if she was a specimen under a microscope. She felt that everyone was there to judge her, and label her as the “girl who tried to kill herself.” I also feel like with this she feels as if no one genuinely cares. Everyone is just interested in being within the loop, and is interested in knowing everything that is going on rather than actually caring about her health and wellness. I feel like that is another aspect as to why she doesn't want to live. For most of her life she has been neglected, and we learned about that in her poem “Daddy.” It is assumed that no one seemed to really care before, so why would people begin to care now?  

Discovering the Truth through Nature

In literature, nature has always stood as a symbol for truth. As the characters of American literature have travelled deeper into nature, so the truth has been deeply revealed. In The Yellow Wallpaper, author Charlotte Perkins Gillman uses nature to reveal a truth about the narrator’s deteriorating relationship with her husband as well as symbolize the reality of her nervous condition. Nature gives us the opportunity to discover hidden context and underlying theme.

Through her barred windows, the narrator “can see the garden, those mysterious deepshaded arbors, the riotous old fashioned flowers, and bushes and gnarly trees” (Gillman, 2). This vivid description leads to an interpretation of an ugly truth, that through being confined to the nursery, the narrator is experiencing a disturbing reality. Even more, the way in which she describes the nature surrounding the secluded mansion is internally troubling and perhaps a reflection of her own life; Gillman certainly declares the house as mysterious, the narrators spirit as riotous, and the relationship between her and John as gnarly, or challenging.

         Describing the home in further detail, the narrator says, “I don’t like our room a bit. I wanted one downstairs that opened on the piazza and had roses all over the window, and such pretty old-fashioned chintz hangings! But John would not hear of it” (Gillman, 1). Again, the narrator uses nature as a reference to the truth; however, in this instance, the symbol of nature is much more significant that the simplicity of honesty. In terms of honesty, this particular description does play an important role in the course of the story; because John forbade his wife from living in the room downstairs with the roses directly out the window, we can be sure that Gillman is implying that he is denying the truth itself, the truth being the actual disposition of her condition. Furthermore, roses have long stood as a symbol of love and womanhood. Therefore, not only does John deny the narrators condition, he also denies where his relationship to her stands and the role that she carries as a wife and woman.

            Nature symbolizes truth and from truth we gain honesty, in situations and relationships. Certainly the case in all examples of literature, this concept is definitely apparent in The Yellow Wallpaper. As our protagonist is driven to a state of insanity, she reveals truth through nature to her readers and although by reading her diary we gain instant access to her direct thoughts, it is through nature that we uncover the hidden context.

Charlotte Perkins Gilman, The Yellow Wallpaper, Boston, MA: Small & Maynard, 1899. Print.

On the Dangers of Power

            Have you heard about the Stanford prison experiment? It is an important experiment for the fields of psychology and sociology, and took place in the summer of 1971 by Dr. Zimbardo. While reading Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, I can’t help but think about the experiment while I am trying to fathom the horrific acts of the masters and overseers in the story. I ask myself, “How is it possible for people to be so cruel?” and find my answer in psychology.

            If you aren’t familiar with the experiment, I will give you a brief overview. In 1971 Dr. Phillip Zimbardo conducted an experiment in which 18 college age men, all psychologically healthy and free of criminal records, were randomly assigned to the role of prisoner or guard, and participated in a six-day-long simulated prison experience. The experiment was originally to run for two weeks, but “the simulation became so real, and the guards became so abusive, that the experiment had to be shut down after only 6 days” (Zimbardo). The guards took advantage of the power given to them in the experiment and acted incredibly cruel to the prisoners, even though they knew in reality that the prisoners had no criminal record. From this experiment we can see that when people are given power and authority, even if it is only perceived power, over others, they can and will do terrible things with it. The guards were not bad people, they were just like us. If after only 6 days they were abusing their “prisoners” simply because they were told to maintain order and structure, then we have to realize that under the influence of authority we also have the chance of doing terrible things.

            I find this experiment salient in understanding the behavior of those who were given power during the time of slavery. It is almost unfathomable that a man could “at times seem to take great pleasure in whipping a slave” upon her “naked back till she was literally covered with blood” (Douglass 51). Yet, things like this happened every day. We could simply say that these slave owners and overseers are cruel horrible people who have no similarities to us, but that would be discounting one of the main messages we still have to learn from stories like Douglass’ Narrative. It is not reasonable to say that all the men and women given positions of power over slaves were terrible people, just like it is not reasonable to say that all people who were enslaved were docile and subordinate. No one is born a slave, and no one is born a master- circumstances form them to be that way. Looking at the role of master and realizing that we, too, could be driven to do bad things at the hands of power, gives us two important lessons from this book: humility, and the dangers of power. These lessons are still incredibly important for today’s readers.

            I know no one wants to think they are similar to the masters in this book, and I am not saying that we are just like them. What I am saying is that everyone has the capacity to be cruel when given false senses of power and superiority. We must remain humble and realize that we have something to learn from the various masters in this story, which is how far humanity can be pushed towards cruelty when we put up lines falsely distinguishing between subordinate and insubordinate.

Works Cited

Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. New

           York: Penguin, 1982. Print.

 Zimbardo, Phillip G. "Stanford Prison Experiment." The Stanford Prison Experiment: A

           Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment. Phillip G. Zimbardo, n.d. Web. 21
           Feb. 2013.

Are We Ever Free?

Dehumanization is a key theme throughout Fredrick Douglass’ life. What makes his story different is how he was able to reconstruct himself back into a functioning society. How does this happen? In “Narative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass” by Fredrick Douglass he goes into depth about feelings and emotions he felt as both a slave and a “free” man. I do not believe that I could possibly go from being treated like filth to equal, in a sense, in a place with the people who formally oppressed me. It takes such patience and such will to not treat those who controlled, beat, and tortured you the same way once you have the opportunity. Fredrick’s story is one of the truly most amazing ones ever because he over cam adversity and suicidal thoughts and truly morphed from slave to a man. Once he was introduced to living in a society, he was still viewed as a black man.  The white owners who treated him lower than an animal went from oppressors to peers. Douglass spoke to his true feelings when he wrote, “The truth was, I felt myself a slave, and the idea of speaking to white people weighed me down” (98 Douglass). Further illustrating that his peers were still in power. He had to abide by the laws of living in a city where money was the way to living comfortably. He still had to gain employment and work grueling hours while still receiving less pay.

The Nazi’s played a similar role to the slave owners in World War II. A leader told them that the Jewish culture was ruining everyday life and that the Jews were to blame for all the hardships that have fallen upon the German people. In turn the Jews were treated like dirt, corralled and went from normal people in society to the ultimate enemy. There were various stages before the Jews ended up in the internment camps. There were made to wear Hebrew Star patches, live in the low income ghettos, and ultimately purged from the streets by German authority. Once in the interment camps, they were malnourished to the point of emaciation and treated like a common street rat. This was the ultimate dehumanization. Left in the cold to starve, freeze, and basically rot because one leader has turned you into an enemy. They were taken down to the level that Douglass described but were left stagnant sitting in these camps left to ultimately die. These people had survivors and like Fredrick had gone through the transformation from a man made a prisoner to a prisoner made a man. Once reintroduced back into the normal population, they still maintained the feeling of being less than the average citizen.

The hardest thing I feel that these two very different examples pose is their reintegration back into society. Going from these awful situations back to functioning day to day, as a free person must be so different. Living once again free with the people that dehumanized and degraded you as a person, who treated you like garbage because you were just another person that society deemed unsuitable to live free. These people will to move back into society while still being viewed as a lower class than people of their same stature. Will their opportunity allow them to achieve as much as the oppressors that held them back for so many years? It depends on what they opt to do and how they live their lives.

What causes these changes in society? How can people treat others like this? I believe in the case of slaves, that it was so engrained in society people did not believe that they were wrong.  They were brought up having slaves and figured why not own them myself. But with the oppression of the Jewish people there is no answer for that. They previously had a place in society right next to the German’s who now would not stand to let them live. It goes to show what society will do in times of serious trouble. They will look to one leader, such as Hitler, and follow his every whim to get them out of the place and time of hardship. Someone with authority and power over the people with a negative connotation is never a positive thing. These feelings did not leave that generation and people are still feeling the effects today. Discrimination is one of the biggest problems in modern society that is run by wealth and affluence. In Douglass’ case, he never received the opportunities that we are given in the present day, but those opportunities are in themselves not free. How does one truly feel free in a society that projects freedom but in a structured manor? I can not go and do whatever I want because there are laws that restrict me. So am I free? Well I am free to make my own choices but those choices must follow the laws of society. 

Images vs. Reality

Going off of the discussion about Aunt Hester, I feel like this scene is important because it frames the role of a colored woman during that time, and how different it is compared to white women. There was obviously a big difference between men and women in that time period, but there was an even bigger difference between colored women and white women. The scenes the women were in didn’t seem to be full scenes. It was more like flashes, because the time frame that they were mentioned in was so short. This is ironic to me because that’s how it was in reality. They were never really around unless they were used as “breeders” or if they were being beaten or abused.  An example is when we are first introduced to aunt Hester, we discover “...the warm, red blood came dripping to the floor. I was so terrified and horror- stricken at the sight, that I hid myself in a closet, and it dared not to venture out until long after the bloody transaction was over” (Douglass 53). Just reading this makes me shudder just as Douglass did. It was all by force, and the women would get punished for absurd reasons.

I feel like women were only mentioned while getting beaten for whatever reason because it is meant to portray the pain, and for the reader to actually see and feel what colored women had to go through at one point in time.

Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986.

An Unintentionally Persuasive Perspective

            Point of view is particularly significant in any piece of literature. The perspective from which the story is told will indeed determine the interpretation made by the reader. Our conclusions of specific readings become a subconscious result of the beliefs of the writer; the author is, after all, the individual that is planting the idea in our minds. In his Narrative, Frederick Douglass relays his experience as a man held captive by slavery. He does not pity himself, or even repent his life as a slave. Because Douglass does not write of his life as an attempt to achieve sympathy, his writing consequently leads the reader to feel sympathy for the situation of a slave. Therefore, the writing style of Douglass is indeed quite brilliant. Through relaying his story point blank, without the unnecessary explanations and additional emotional turmoil, Douglass narrates his life in a way that wins over his readers.

            As his narration begins, Douglass explains, “I received my first impressions of slavery on this plantation, I will give some description of it, and of slavery as it there existed” (53). Douglass’ initial introduction to his portrayal of slavery is a direct and rather blunt telling; he does not sugar coat what he intends to say. As he proceeds with his story, Douglass relays the experience of the slaves as they happened, void of any attempt to gain pity from the reader. “Mr. Gore then, without consultation or deliberation with any one … raised his musket to his face … and Demby was no more” (67) and, indeed, Douglass could not have relayed this more plainly. However, it is exactly this form of telling that gains the sympathy of the readers. Because it appears to the reader that in Douglass’ perspective this behavior and its resulting actions were a natural part of slavery, it makes the brutal killing that much more vile.

            Clearly, Douglass was not searching to win anyone over; he did not write his narrative with the objective of gaining anything. It appears, however, that he was working to challenge his readers’ perspectives on the ongoing issue of slavery. Because his writing style, author tone, and first person point of view were exceptionally blunt, Douglass certainly achieves a level of oneness with his reader. Though he does not seek sympathy, he attains it through honesty and direct storytelling. A determined leader of America, on a pursuit to achieve freedom, Frederick Douglass not only made an amazing and significant impact on our country’s history of slavery, but also on a minor individual that picked up his story.