It was discussed at length in class on Tuesday, October 14th, whether or not Brautigan wrote from a misogynist or sexist point of view. My opinion is that Brautigan writes women to be voiceless, opinionless idealized statues of sex and passion. His women hardly ever move, and when they do, they do so in small, typical actions (like turning water on and off in "I Lie Here in a Strange Girl's Apartment", and seasoning meat in "The Garlic Meat Lady from"). Brautigan divides each muse into distinct, sexualized parts, and then explains the physical beauty he finds therein.
This is far separate from how Ginsberg uses his explicit sexual imagery. Ginsberg does not isolate women as a separate, silent species, but instead spends his time identifying with other males. "Howl," for example, uses multiple words like "cunt" and "snatch," but does not single out the female form; rather, he tends to use the terms in metaphor and int the context of an actual purpose for the vagina. Ginsberg does not gloss over all femininity, but instead contrasts it to the masculine world that he knows, and the (presumably mostly male, as he only mentions other men by name throughout the rest of the book) "minds of [his] generation."
Taking into consideration the poor, unfamiliar light cast upon the female race by these authors, what do you think characterizes gender biases of the Beat and post-Beat eras?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I have noticed the differences within the poet's perspectives on women. It is interesting to me ... to observe the different ways in which these poets write about women. Brautigan writes more about his individual encounters with women; and whether or not he is considered sexist by the reader, his perceptions are narrowed by the fact that he is talking about the individual. I did think initially that Brautigan seemed a bit crude towards women; but the changing mentality of the beat poets was more raw and crude compared to the writers preceding them.
I do also agree that Ginsberg does not seem to be hold such a fixed view of women; but I do think that the tone and attitude dealing with blunt and raw detail and language is similar to that of Brautigan.
Language is powerful, and I think that Brautigan's language can be interpreted in a variety of ways.
I agree that Braughtigan does not equally portray both male and female perspectives, but I believe that this is not because he is a misogynist. I think he is truely just giving his own account of his feeling, his perspective, and his own desires. He is focusing on his own pleasure he gets from the situation, because that is what he feels, and is more powerful to him. By lying in a bed while a man desires you does not make you passive or without consent or consideration. Rather I feel that in many instance it can be viewed as a very realistic way to analyze a first person's account of anything, even regardless to whether or not it is a sexual setting.
This is a really interesting discussion...one that I don't think is easily "resolved." Sometimes, I'm tempted to read RB's poems concerning women in an ironic, absurdist way, just because so many of his other poems are so exaggerated. And yet, this type of reading always comes with a wariness that women sometimes took a back seat to the men of the time...it's just where things were politically.
...which is why in later decades we see an increasing interest in "Beat women" -- who were they? What was it like to be among Ginsberg, Kerouac, Ferlinghetti, etc.? Might be an interesting project to open up.
Post a Comment