Would you say that Fantomina's story is a tale of female empowerment or of female oppression?
Cite some text to support your claims.
You can respond by disagreeing with a classmate's post or by suggesting additional evidence to support a classmate's claim--just be kind and collegial as you do so.
Deadline: Friday (8/28), start of class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
I would say that it is a tale of female oppression, because it is truly out of "Fantomina"'s love and dependence on Beauplaisir that she turns towards trickery and disguise. That longing to be with him (which can be considered a form of emotional enslavement) is what causes her to turn towards changing her person to fool Beauplaisir.
Also, the fact that it is ultimately Beauplaisir who has the final say in when the relationship ends with each woman declares it a tale of female oppression. When Beauplaisir begins to lose interest in the relationship, Fantomina loses her ability to hold any sort of power over him.
The line "He believed her a mistress, but believed her to be one of a superior rank, and began to imagine the possession of her would be much more exprensive than at first he had expected..." on page 2799 of my copy reveals the way in which Beauplaisir views Fantomina- as an object to be possessed. Beauplaisir is in it for the thrill of the chase, and once he gets what he wants, he is done. Fantomina, however, falls in love with Beauplaisir and loses emotional power over him because she is in love.
Lastly, at the end, Fantomina ends up being sent to a monastery in France because of her pregnancy. I believe that Haywood is trying to use the monastary to symbolize a sort of prison that Fantomina is reduced to as a result of her love for Beauplaisir.
I believe that Fantomina’s story is a tale of female oppression. To begin with, it is a tale of oppression because readers can infer from the story that women during this time period face immense scrutiny compared to men when it comes to sexuality and capability. It is expected of women at this time to subdue their sexual desires and also their place in society because men are seen as inferior beings. As one can see in the beginning of the tale, men are allowed to flirt and hold as many mistresses as they choose without being looked down upon or typecast in society. As Haywood states, “several gentlemen extremely pleased themselves with entertaining a woman who sat in the corner of the pit, and, by her air and manner of receiving them, might easily be known to be one of those who come there for no other purpose than to create acquaintance with as many as seem desirous of it” (3082). This scene is a representation of the societal oppression being placed upon women because the men are being characterized as being men, while the woman who is partaking in the same flirtatious act as the men is viewed as a mistress and that of lower status in society. Even at the end of the tale, after outsmarting Beauplaisir and showing that she holds the same capabilities as men of society both intellectually and sexually, it is still a tale of oppression because she ultimately takes the fall for the elusive acts she has performed—the very acts the men perform on women and get away with everyday in 18th century society. As the elder states, “The blame is wholly hers, and I have nothing to request further of you, than that you will not divulge the distracted folly she has been guilty of” (3099). Even though Fantomina disguised herself as four different women, Beauplaisir had no idea it was her the entire time—to him, they were four different women and therefore proves that women hold the same capabilities as men hold over women in society. However, such discovered capabilities are inherently lost when Fantomina must take the blame for her actions at the end of the tale and confirms that said story is a tale of female oppression rather than empowerment.
I would say that Fantomina's story is a tale of both female empowerment and female oppression. It is true that Beauplaisir saw Fantomina and all her personae as objects of unfathomable pleasure instead of people of equal stature. However, Fantomina enjoyed the power she had over Beauplaisir. Perhaps, it wasn't love that Fantomina was after, but the ability to make men "be caught in their own snare" (3096). She enjoyed the addictive rush that men should only feel and craved more each time she beguiled Beauplaisir. The fourth encounter between Fantomina and Beauplaisir is a perfect example of how Fantomina satisfies her cravings for control and dominance. She hid her face behind a mask and was able to gain some sort of leverage over Beauplaisir which in the process made him vulnerable and inferior. For example, " He was so much out of humor, however, at the disappointment of his curiosity, that he resolved never to make a second visit" (3097). Furthermore, Fantomina always refers to her schemes as "stratagem" as though she were attacking an enemy. Lastly, the ending of the story sends a misogynist tone to the reader bluntly saying that men are able to do whatever they want without consequence; men hold chastity to be the most valuable aspect of a woman.
In the context of a patriarchal society, any "failure" by a woman (in this case Fantomina's pregnancy and subsequent removal to a convent) is going to appear to be a case of oppression. And in many ways it is. However, I think it's reductive to maintain this view exclusively. The simple fact that Fantomina is able to identify her desires and then choose to pursue them, despite the disapprobation of a hostile society, is a testament to her agency. Indeed she "[does] in everything as her inclinations or humors rendered most agreeable to her" (3082). This exercise of her individuality is an act of empowerment. The so-called "failure" of her act should not distract from its implications of feminist rebellion.
I see Fantomina as mainly a story of female oppression. Firstly, I see Beauplaisir as the control (as if this were an experiment) in the story and Fantomina as the variable. The woman is the one constantly changing and adapting to the male who is, in this case, the determining factor of each of the relationships. He controls whether or not they continue seeing each other. But for this to be a story of female empowerment, the female has to be in control and recognize that it is those around her, or society, that needs to adapt to her motives or actions.
Fantomina is not gaining respect from either society or Beauplaisir. She is, with full intention, quietly and unobtrusively attempting to get what she individually desires. The quotes, "she was young, a stranger to the world, and consequently to the dangers of it" and had "nobody in town at the time to whom she was obliged to be accountable for her actions" on page 3082 displays how she acted without the knowledge of others, therefore no one would be able to either criticize her actions as "empowering" nor brave. She was acting on her own behalf, ready to alter her own being to what she believed would be most accepted by others. Moreover, the fact that she was forced into the convent, controlled by yet someone else, shows how she was yet oppressed by someone else she was incapable of "empowering."
While there are elements of both empowerment and oppression present in the story, I think it is overall oppressive. I would like to follow up on Whitney's comment that Beauplaisir views Fantomina as an object to be possessed. A further quote that illustrates this objectifying view of Fantomina comes from page 3085: "and he gained a victory, so highly rapturous, that had he known over whom, scarce could he have triumphed more." The initial sex between Beauplaisir and Fantomina is thus presented as him triumphing over and dominating her, and clearly shows the stereotypical gender roles present in the story.
The role of female oppression does play a heavy hand in the story, in that Fantomina is forced again and again to disguise herself in order to play the roles she wishes to play with Beauplaisir, however I feel there is a certain amount of female empowerment in the way the caracter of Fantomina is portrayed by Haywood. He gives her, after all, the characteristics of intelligence and logic that at the time were probably considered predominantly masculine. And this from a male author. Her creativity in satisfying her curiosity puts her above Beauplaisir on an intellectual level. The oppressiveness in the story, I think, comes more from the period's treatment of women and roles expected of them, and Haywood might use these expectations to show what can happen to an intelligent person under such a system.
Although it is accurate to say that there are elements of female empowerment and liberation within Fantomina, the story as a whole is definitely one of female oppression. Fantomina begins her experiment with dressing as a mistress with purely innocent intentions, and falls in love with Beauplaisir's charm and the conversation they shared. Initially, her identity as mistress Fantomina brought her liberty, as it allowed her to experience "a vast deal of pleasure in conversing with him in this free and unrestrained manner" (228). Moreover, after she has created and assumed the identies of Celia and Widow Bloomer, she feels a rush of power knowing that she has tricked a man, and has him "always raving, wild, impatient, longing, dying" (243). However, if the story were truly supposed to convey female empowerment, Fantomina would have come out ahead in life, rather than cast off to a monastary. Even Fantomina's mother credits all disgrace to Fantomina and none whatsoever to the man, "the blame is wholly her's, and I have nothing to request further of you..." (248). By ending so abruptly with the disgrace of Fantomina and the supposed innocence of Beauplaisir, the story conveys oppression.
I am not sure that our question should remain "empowerment" vs. "oppression" when discussing themes in "Fantomina," as I do not feel this is the main theme of the story. As we discussed last class, Haywood probably did not intend "Fantomina" to be an analysis or commentary on a woman struggling against the dominant male hegemony-- this would not have been a concept to her at the time-- but rather simply to entertain the readers of the day. However, that is not to say that we as readers in the 21st century cannot discern the forces of oppression working against Fantomina throughout the narrative. In fact, we can see such disadvantages play out in many ways, the most notable being the ending of the story. Also, let us not forget Fantomina's objective in pursuing Beauplaisir in the first place: she simply wanted to know what it was like to be a whore. She was not fighting for a right denied to her by society-- she got what she wanted, though perhaps was not ultimately satisfied-- and could maybe have, if she had divulged her identity, truly won over Beauplaisir. This story, to me, seems more about the intricacies of the class system functioning in England at the time and what it meant to be defined by such a system-- the notions of nobility, honor, disgrace, loyalty, etc. In essence, I believe this story explores the broader idea of identity in the English social system of the day, rather than just the treatment of women. (End note: by saying this, I am in no way victimizing either character or discounting Fantomina's sad fate. That is not my intention.)
I believe Andrew brought up an interesting point about that "agency" that Fantomina displays throughout the text. He is certainly correct in asserting that she has considerable agency, and that she utilizes this to her advantage when everything is stacked against her. However, it is at this point our beliefs diverge. While it is his argument that the mere act of her rebellion against the status quo is enough to classify the text as one that is empowering to women, I disagree. Certainly, it is impressive how much she turns a bad situation into one she can exploit to her own ends, however she is still, no matter how much she struggles, unable to escape and transcend the rules and customs of the male-dominated society. She tricks Beauplaisir impressively, however her trickery still must be palatable to the rules of the patriarchal society she lives in. If she were to come out, reveal the true name behind Fantomina, and denounce the actions of Beauplaisir, the man who in her mother's words "[drew] her to this dishonor" (3098) nothing would change. She would be shuttled off to the convent, and he would be free to continue womanizing as he pleases. She is not truly rising above the system then by doing these things; she is merely entangling herself more within it, bending, but not breaking the rules, making the tale more one of oppression than empowerment.
I feel that Fantomina is a tale of female oppression because throughout all her disguises and all the trickery, Fantomina is still a slave to the class structure, while Beauplaisir exercises the freedom to move freely throughout many different classes. Although the story presents Fantomina as dominant to Beauplaisir, it becomes evident at the end of the story that she cannot deny the fate of her class and the powerlessness of her gender.
To continue on what has already been said, I think that this is truly a tale of female empowerment because of the focus on Fantomina's ability to trick and act quickly until the ending.
The role of Fantomina's mother, another female, blaming her daughter as well as the pregnancy and sending her off to a monastery transforms the empowerment into oppression.
It may be argued that the empowerment goes to her mother but the main character (Fantomina) lost her empowerment so quickly and Beauplaisir is off the hook like Taylor mentioned, leaving the audience with no empowerment either.
I can agree with what my classmates are saying about the story being oppressive.Of course the fact that Fantomina uses her talents to beautifully and articulates her mind so well that she can trick her lover sequentially without him ever having a doubt in his mind that the new character is someone he has never met before. As a modern reader I would like to add that this tale of dramatic romance can almost be used as an enlightening story to the morale of young female readers. Not only is this an excellent example of how dangerous first love, first experience can be, but it also puts in to perspective the consequences of following Fantomina's path of love. The fact that the young woman's name remains anonymous sets a good tone for the reader to connect to her, almost engulfing the reader and transforming the reader into the young Fantomina. Also when the story suddenly rushes to an end, the last lines are fast paced, and serve as a finger snap to boldly demonstrate the consequences of her actions. "...and as soon as her daughter was in a condition. sent her to a monastery in France..." p.3099 So in this manner it can serve as a very strong lesson with deep impact on the reader. It definitely raised my eyebrow a few inches.
Like Cameron, I would also question whether the author's intended argument was for oppression versus empowerment. I would say that this is a considerably racy story, commenting on both women's wit and knowledge of their fate and the almost obsessive relationship society had with a woman's virtue. The anticlimactic ending compared to the detailed changes of Fantomina's transformation serves to make the story realistic during the 18th century. However interesting the initial changes and lewd behavior the woman had, the point would be null had everything worked out in her favor. One could argue that it is a commentary on relationships that continues to be valid--does Fantomina's problem of enduring passion really end at the Enlightenment? As mentioned by others here, had she gone the route of marriage and courting, none of the intense passion could have been enjoyed without certain exhaustion on the male's part (3096). The story could stand today, in the 21st century, and still hold valid arguments for oppression and empowerment. The interesting point of this story is the transition from the romance story into a novel--character development beginning, engaging sequences of events, but still not quite departing from the abrupt, unsatisfying yet morally obligatory ending.
I would agree with Julia when she claims that it is not necessarily empowerment versus oppression. I believe due to oppression, Fantomina uses Beauplaisir to feel empowerment. Throughout the story, she is determined to keep her identity, and class a secret from Beauplaisir, breaking the barriers that society has placed upon her with her social status. Her desire for freedom for this oppression is clear from the beginning when she goes to the playhouse, and plots to bring Beauplaisir to her lodgings, "thinking she might with more security to her honor entertain him at a place where she was mistress, that at any of his own choosing" (3084). But, Haywood is also making a point of female oppression through Fantomina's long to be free, and to have power over men such as Beauplaisir. This is expressed especially at the end where Fantomina is blamed solely for her behavior, and her pregnancy, where Beauplaisir should also be to blame. The question of oppression versus empowerment cannot be determined as one or the other, because both are weaved into the story with Fantomina's motives against her social standards, and the result of her rebellion due to oppression.
A mask or disguise is a tool to aid a person's escape from reality. It allows them to become something or somebody that they are not. It is something with which they can manipulate reality (I reject your reality and substitute my own) and attain lives that they otherwise would not be able to. In Fantomina, she dresses as a prostitute, by doing so, she "found a vast deal of pleasure in conversing with him in this free and unrestrained manner" (3083). When she was not disguised, "her quality and reputed virtue kept him from using her with that freedom she now expected he would do" (3083).
In order to prevent being discovered, "She depended on the strength of her virtue, to bear her fate through trials more dangerous than she apprehended this to be" (3084). In addition, to take more control of the situation, she chose a house "where she was mistress" (3084).
The entire story is filled with examples where she is empowered.
However, she gave into Beauplaisir's desires. She does all this to give herself to him in hopes of making him love her. If she had not, she would not have ended up pregnant and her reputation would have been unharmed.
So this is a case of both empowerment and oppression. She uses her wit and power to give herself up to a man. And she is sent to a convent to repent. I started the story thinking it was a story of enlightenment. But the ending shows that female oppression is still present. The responsibility to prove that that man is her child's father is hers alone. Otherwise, that man legally bears no obligation to either the woman or her child. Fantomina is further punished by being sent off to a monastery. And Beauplasaire is left free to continue with his conquests. I think that another instance of oppression is that despite these consequences, Fantomina still believes herself to have come out on top: ""But I have outwitted even the most Subtle of the deceiving Kind, and while he thinks to fool me, is himself the only beguiled Person."
Both I think; on one hand she totally plays Beau, always one step ahead of him: "she was so admirably skilled in the art of feigning...that all the comedians at both playhouses are infinitely short of her performances" (3091), so she's pretty good and the author makes a point to mention how good she is - especially the part where she performs better than actual actors (who I think at the time were all males? let's say..yes).
She does all that despite being a woman which is impressive (for her time), but ultimately her being a woman does in fact end up f'ing her over. She would've been fine - she's got Beauplaisir eating out of her hand the entire time, especially as Incognita - if she didn't get pregnant, kind of a womanly thing to do. What really hurts for her is how much she was actually enjoying the sensation of being in control (empowered), "applauding her own strength of genius, and force of resolution...a means to make herself more blessed" (3095-6).
We talked about why the story ends so abruptly the other day; I think the point is that it took Fantomina all this time and effort - twenty pages worth - to work her way up from an inherent disadvantage. And even after doing everything right and playing her parts perfectly, she just can't win because she is a woman after all and that baby is going to show eventually. It takes a page and a half to dismantle the whole thing and I think that's the kind of real oppression Haywood is referencing in the made up text.
She is a victim, albeit from some of her actions, from a culture readily expectant of devotion, chastity, and virginity from the female population. The young lady notes in the beginning of the novel that she is curious that such men of high rank would fraternize with prostitutes.
“The greater was her wonder that men, some of whom she knew were accounted to have wit, should have tastes so very depraved.—… to know in what manner these creatures were addressed (Longman 3082).” How was it that men in high station could not ruin their rank by having relations with these “creatures”? Her curiosity resulted in her disguises, sexual encounters, and trickery.
In the end, however, the situation ended completely on the fault of a mischievous young girl. While talking to Beauplaisir, her mother berated her in questioning “is this the gentleman, to whom you owe your ruin?...Oh! no (resumed the trembling creature), he is, indeed (Longman 3099).” The useage of the term “creature” for the young lady is a reference to the lower class prostitutes that She originally wondered in the concert hall. She has now soiled her class name and is synonymous with the “creatures” mentioned earlier in the book.
Furthermore, her mother engenders the whole of social order and class structure when she tells the upper class Beauplaisir that “the blame is wholly hers, and I have nothing to request further of you (Longman 3099).”
Post a Comment