To return to the topic I brought up in, I'm curious as to how "Cranford" would have been received by the public if Cranford were occupied my mostly men, with a distaste for women. I instantly assume the book would be pegged as misogynistic, as it should be. Women have clearly always been treated terribly, especially in literature, and in my opinion deserve a book like "Cranford". I think the reason the book is seen as humorous in first place is because it's so out of the ordinary from the rest of the books written at that time. After so many years of being treated as inferior, I believe women deserve to be able to have a story where they are unquestionably superior.
But on that same note, does that not make "Cranford" quite sexist? Although I personally view the book as appropriate, does it not break the same rules as misogynistic book? From a equality stand point, one could make the argument that "Cranford" is just as responsible to stalling equal rights as some other book with a reverse plot line?
Cranford is most definitely a sexist book, but somehow, most likely because of the misogynistic time the book was published, it's ok. I don't think it could actually stall equality though. It was popular in its day, but not popular enough to do something that drastic.
ReplyDeleteI feel as if because Cranford is such a comedic book, that many people might not take it as seriously. It might be seen purely as entertainment instead of a means for societal change. Therefore, I agree with Stephanie, I don't think that the novel could actually stall equality.
ReplyDeleteWell, two wrongs don't make a right!
ReplyDeleteCranford's resolution makes me feel slighted in the reverse-sexism I was enjoying so much! I feel Cranford, knowingly sexist, tried to correct itself with the return of Peter bringing peace to the town. It's too late, though, and now it just seems a book with an anti-climatic ending. Sigh.
I'd like to challenge the Cranford-as-sexist (reverse-sexist?) reading of the text. I feel like that kind of judgement should have a broader evidence base than simply the town's preponderance of women of a certain age and attitude. I feel like in every instance that the text asserts the preeminence of women's space and "superiority", it shows us fatal weaknesses of these attitudes and characters-- that they are based in the social and economic insecurity that is apparently inevitable without the presence of a man for too long. And it's the "apparently" wherein the books sexism may lie. Are the women of Cranford living dishonestly and believing dishonestly of themselves and others? Is it important? If that distinction is NOT important , then I err on the side of the book itself being sexist.
ReplyDelete