One of my favorite movies is Away We Go, starring John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph. In one particularly funny scene (see here), Verona and Burt are at the home of Burt’s childhood friend, “LN,” who is characterized by her radical views of parenting, childbirth and outspoken support of matriarchal values. Essentially, she is characterized as an obsessive feminist, self-righteous and distrustful of men. While the scene pokes fun at the extremes and misuses of feminist theory, it also brings up Beauvoir’s understanding of women as mysterious. Men cannot understand “the quality of woman’s erotic pleasure, the discomfort of menstruation, and the pains of childbirth” (1268), and women, in turn, can never fully understand man. It seems that Beauvoir wouldn’t be opposed to doulas, midwives, and the like, at least in the context of women having similar physical experiences unique to their sex.
LN’s character invites ridicule because of her decontextualized Beauvoir quotes and equating of childbirth to war. Her understanding of women as mysterious is pushed to unreasonable ends, to an arrogance that characterizes women as more important than men. There is a thin line between establishing women as mysterious, and establishing Women. On the one hand, it is kind of frustrating to see LN as the representation of feminism, because this characterization pervades popular culture and even classroom discussions I’ve been a part of. It is frustrating to see the feminist professor characterized in a narrow way. However, it is a movie, and nearly everyone is ridiculed. And, LN doesn’t necessarily invite empathy with her off-putting comments, especially paired with her upper class lifestyle and irritating penchant for candles literally everywhere.
So, some questions.
Is LN justified (in the context of the feminist theory we’ve read so far) in her dismissal of Burt?
Is LN an example of Beauvoir’s feminist existentialism decontextualized or hyperbolized? Or is she simply an example of a generalization of a feminist?
Dana,
ReplyDeleteI've now watched the (very funny) clip and reflected upon what you've said about de Beauvoir's concept of the feminine mystery. In truth, I think that de Beauvoir's assertion that men and women cannot know each other's experience is spot on. There will inevitably be an "othering" that takes place when men and women engage in discourse. But, as de Beauvoir and other feminist theorists point out, ALL women are unique— Cixous says in "The Laugh of the Medusa" that "there is, at this time, no general woman, no one typical woman" (1943). But it is what we share with others, whether that be the bodily experience of being a woman or perhaps something not related to gender/sex whatsoever, that allows us to share meaning with one another.
I find the end of Cixous' piece extremely interesting because, despite discussing the importance of the individual woman writing the individual woman's experience, she moves to a discussion of community: “The new love dares for the other, wants the other… In one another we will never be lacking” (1958). She is likely speaking exclusively of a community of women, but nevertheless I think this final passage is incredibly hopeful for bridging the gap between logocentric dichotomies. We need the other.
I apologize for what has become quite a tangential digression. Let's watch this movie together.
-Audrey
Like you, I have a lot of problems with the depiction of feminism this scene proposes. First off, what die-hard feminist would forget where a Simone de Beauvoir quote comes from (also, is it actually from Simone or is it Wittig)? Second, I have a problem with the way in which LN's conception of childbirth serves to reenforce the woman-as-mystery myth. Of course, as both you and Audrey have pointed out, there is necessarily a schism that exists between the existential experience of men and women. Still, the way in which LN attempts to explain this divide makes it seem (in some ways) that women are not human, but rather a radical other.
ReplyDeleteI think the uneasiness I feel with this clip stems from this othering (examined through childbirth). The juxtaposition of the phrase, "one is not born but becomes a woman," within the discussion of childbirth gives off the impression that Women are created through the action of childbearing. This is problematic for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which being that is plays into the "static myth" of the sexes being different because of reproduction (1265). Yet, at the same time, it is technically true that our construction of the sexes is based off of things like biology. But, of course, then we run into some of the problems that Wittig discusses in her work (1907). Perhaps I am misreading LN's dialogue and the entire scene revolves around a larger discussion on the construction of Woman and childbirth. Maybe I'd have to see the rest of the movie.
In summation, I'll ask the following string of questions: Does LN play into the myth of Women with her dialogue? Does her assertion that childbirth=war play into a larger discussion that engages with the ideas of Wittig? If this is the case, who exactly is this scene poking fun at?
Yeah, there are a few myths being addressed here. I think the butt of the joke is "feminist" discourse which totalizes everything into one essentialist viewpoint about what women think/believe.
ReplyDelete