The Female Man: “I” as “Everywoman”
Looking back on our discussion about the “I” character in the book, I was intrigued and want to delve a little further into this mysterious “I”. When we had discussed the “I” character in class I was ahead in the reading and thought that the character was most definitely Jael. However, as I read on and finished the entire book, I was much less sure. Yes, at times the “I” seemed to be Jael, secretly in the presence of the other ladies, commenting on their life choices. For instance, it seems probable that Jael is the “I” in the italicized sections of the novel, hinting that she will appear in person later. She after all, is the one who pulls all the women together at the end of the novel to make her proposition. However, while Jael might possibly be the “I” character at times, I find it much more likely that the “I” is something of every character, of every woman.
This ties in nicely then to Russ’s comments about “Everywoman” and that, “Jeannine is Everywoman” as is Jael (212). Russ, in this concept of Everywoman seems to imply that women, in their state of gender inequality, are bound together, no matter their differences. Meek and mild Jeannine is as much a part of Everywoman as is aggressive and severe Jael. Therefore, it would make sense that the “I” character is included in this Everywoman, that she might at times sound more like Jael than Janet, or might even sound like the author Joanna Russ or some other woman who is not even a character in this book. Everywoman implies a bond, a similarity, and an idea that no matter how different one woman might be from another, they are connected.
After making this connection between the “I” character and the concept of ‘Everywoman” I became more intrigued by what might make women have a common bond, a common classification as ‘Everywoman”. Interestingly enough, when Russ introduces this concept, right after Janet seems to be excluded from the term. As Russ states, “We all stared accusingly at Janet but Miss Evason was not moved… Janet got up to go” (212). At this time Jael is trying to convince the other woman to let her put a base on their planets and Janet shows the most resistance. Janet does not seem to fit in, the term “Everywoman” almost seeming not to include her. This is best hinted by her leaving. Quite possibly, Janet, living in a world without men, cannot be an “Everywoman” because an “Everywoman” is only created in the presence of men. In other words, Jael, Jeannine, and Joanna are ‘Everywoman” in that they are subordinate to men, an oppressed group that is often seen as all being the same and having the same needs by the male population. This makes sense in the idea that no matter how different the worlds might seem or how different the woman act, they are a collective “Everywoman” in the face of male dominance. Janet, not having the pressures of male dominance, has her individuality and is not grouped by her gender as the other women are. In this way, Joanna Russ seems to imply that “Everywoman” is a negative term, created by gender dystopias in which females are generally oppressed. It seems that the idea that “I’m Everywoman” might not be empowering, but instead yet another consequence of gendered society.
My opinion on "Everywoman" is that it is trying to state identity in the most broad of terms possible. Everywoman can essentially be any woman, if we took actually took every woman we would get every type of personality variety known and because of this we cannot put so much truth towards the gender scripts and stereotypes because there is no such thing as an "everywoman". With stereotypes, two categories emerge, one lists how a woman should be, and the other is how a woman should not be. The former is, as you stated, dominated by what men prefer, but it is not practical because every woman has a characteristic that falls in the latter category.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading the novel I thought that the "I" character was the author Joanna Russ. After a while I began to become confused about who exactly was the "I" character.
ReplyDeleteI think that "Everywoman" is saying that all women have different personalties. That all women are not the same and my have different goals in life. Becoming everyone is meaning that I'm just not restricted to a certain title. I could be more than want you may perceive me to be.
On the other hand the term "Everywoman" could have a negative stereotype. This term is suppose to be empowering and it suppose to mean that women are not limited to certain stereotypes. I think that this concept of I'm Everywoman can have a negative impression. We should not have to put the word woman. When we put the word woman in the term it makes me think that I can be anyone, but they have to be a woman. So I won't be able to do things that males can do. The term should be I am every human being, and there for the term would be really representing equality between men and women.
I was also confused while reading the novel as to who "I" was and I came to the conclusion that it was different in each instance. For example, there was the time when (I don't remember where in the book this was) that Jael hinted that she was coming, but she was not always the "I" character.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that you said that Janet does not fall into "everywoman" because she doesn't know what its like to live in a society with two genders. She doesn't know what its like to be oppressed.
I was constantly questioning the "I" character throughout the novel. When we first discussed it in class I was sure that they use of "I" was the characters inner monologue, what they were really thinking. However, as I continued reading and got farther into the book I started thinking that the "I" character was the author Joanaa Russ. In that she was putting in her own persepective and ideas on what the characters are going through in their lives. Now, after reading your post I'm starting to think the "I" character is this "everywoman" they talked about in the book. I feel as though this has a negative connotation towards it. As we know, every woman is different and it's impossible to put all woman into one character. It seems that they are stereotyping all woman into this "everywoman" character and that we are all the same.
ReplyDelete