February 26, 2007
Entrapment is Unconsciously Portrayed by Women Authors?
"Still, the male writer is so much more comfortable with his literary role that he can usually elaborate upon his visionary theme more consciously and objectively than the female writer can" (260).
This doesn't really make sense to me. Why should it be easier for men to be more conscious and objective when it comes to depicting imprisonment in their writings if it is, as the authors say in the next sentence "metaphysical and metaphorical' when a woman's experience with imprisonment is "social and actual." So because the apparent entrapment of women is, according to the authors, actually real, woman can only write about it unconsciously? I seriously doubt Gilman wrote about entrapment accidentally as a result of unconscious effort.
Posted by LorinSchumacher at February 26, 2007 2:12 AM
I think that writing about confinement about women is easier and conscious for men just because they are the ones who allow for the entrapment. He is also more comfortable talking about this because it is not a big deal to him. He is able to elaborate with details with visual images because he has had experience and no one will argue with him about his concepts.
Posted by: Denamarie at February 28, 2007 9:29 PM
I think more so that the issue being addressed was since Men had become dominant and therefore more comfortable in their role as writers and authors they had more freedom and ability to throw obscure ideas at the reader. Women who were finally starting to come into their own as writers had to be more conscious of what they were writing because mysogyny still was high and heavy and if they wrote anything suggestive or in attempt to crush male theory they would immediately be punished.
Posted by: Kevin at March 1, 2007 3:55 PM