To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).
English 342 - Polemical Project - How does Bridget Jones become a woman (does she?)?
Hey group and strangers;
This is the format we've decided to present our polemical project in, and even though most of the posts will be made by the group members, please feel free, anyone, to contribute in any way you see fit.
Couple of considerations: keep the language reasonably clean (not too many sexist/racial slurs), and if you can, provide textual evidence - opinions can be valid too, but they ring much truer when supported by facts.
Please, enjoy the debate.
Tomas H.
This is the format we've decided to present our polemical project in, and even though most of the posts will be made by the group members, please feel free, anyone, to contribute in any way you see fit.
Couple of considerations: keep the language reasonably clean (not too many sexist/racial slurs), and if you can, provide textual evidence - opinions can be valid too, but they ring much truer when supported by facts.
Please, enjoy the debate.
Tomas H.
Comments
The first option she offers us is that a woman should be a Feminist. In order to be a woman, Bridget must become independent from all men and be happy as a single, strong individual. Fielding represents this option through the character of Sharon.
The second option is that a woman should be married and have children. Bridget must find a husband and have multiple babies with him before her "biological clock" stops ticking. Fielding represents this option through the character of Magda.
The third possible option (and people can argue with me on this) is that a woman should achieve inner poise and confidence, yet be in a healthy relationship. Bridget perhaps does become a woman when she gets together with Mark Darcy. However, she does not possess inner poise nor does she get married and have babies.
That is all I have for now, but I will come back with evidence to support my points. In the meantime, do people agree or disagree with me?
Ehlam Z.
Thus, with most of the things that Bridget tried to achieve during the year, she failed (i.e. smoking, weight, lottery tickets, etc.). But the one thing that did change is that she has a man.
Did this contribute toward her being a woman?
Just to clear up my stance on this, I am not 100% sure, but Helen Fielding seems to be ridiculing feminism (especially second-wave Sharon-like feminism - proof will follow) to such an extent that it simply cannot be the way for Briget to reach happiness/womanhood.
Since Briget, at the end of the book, feels more complete/fulfilled/(feminine?), and the only thing that changed was a man entering her life, Fielding is showing that by reverting to the traditional female role as a partner to a male must be the right way to become a woman (as in, wo-vs/+-man). Again, this is just a general feeling at this point.
Will supply said evidence soon.
Keep in mind as well, for those of you who know the movie more than the book, that we don't exactly know her height. Bone structure plays a part in how much we weigh, so is Bridget's whinning about her weight because she's shorter than 5'5?
Another thing is that media plays a role in Bridget's society because she's so influenced by Cosmo magazine. Every day, we even see magazines women, on the front page, looking beautiful and thin/healthy/fit (various terms were used and we felt that "skinny" was not an appropriate term). Because Bridget reads this magazine constantly, she thinks that it's her goal to use those dieting methods to lose weight... but it's not healthy.
- Bryanne
The first option Fielding provides us in the novel is Feminism. However, I do not believe that she thinks Feminism is the best approach to become a woman. In the novel, she presents Sharon as a ranting man-hater. Every time she gets together with the group, she talks about men as "fuckwits." Fielding even undercuts Sharon's character when she asks Bridget to pass her "one of those mini-pizzas" after one of her supposedly intellectual rants (108).
Furthermore, I do not think that Fielding supports the second option, which is Marriage, either of what defines a woman. Throughout the novel, she presents marriage negatively. For example, Magda, who is supposed to be happy with a husband and two children, tells Bridget after her fight with Jeremy that she "should make the most of being single while it lasts" (113).
Fielding also portrays marriage as a competition among couples. Children become an accessory and an object for being superior. In the novel, Bridget encounters mothers who create contests "over the size of the boys' genitals and, correspondingly, the husbands'" (61). Hence, because Fielding does not positively convey the idea of Marriage, I doubt that she considers Marriage to be part of womanhood.
The third option seems to be the most accurate in the case of Bridget Jones. Even though she does not achieve her goals of obtaining inner poise, losing weight, not smoking, and so on, she does gain a boyfriend -- a Mark Darcy. She has a job that has given her a good position and she has Mark. Thus, Bridget becomes a woman by maintaining her independence from men while at the same time possessing a boyfriend.
Does anyone disagree?
Ehlam
The "Woman" is dependent on the "Man", thus if the "Man" falls, so does the woman. However the converse is not true. The fall of the "Woman" does not necessarily mean the fall of the "Man".
If the "Woman" falls, the "Man" with his superior intellect will find an alternative to the "Woman" for the bearing of children (Cloning), performing domestic chores, preparing the food and providing sexual services i.e. A Robot.
by people noticing her as a woman. IE: Her boss and Marc Darcy.
While women don't "need" men to be who they are, "WOMANHOOD" is something that can't be defined without "MANHOOD". So yes, without men, there can be no definition of WOMANHOOD. It's the truth of all opposites. Evil>
He has performed a great task, and she was being performed to, and so she has reached a sense of satisfaction.
I don't think you have to necessarily talk about men and women as a whole here. The entire point of Bridget Jones is that she is someone who wants to call herself a feminist but is, in fact, nothing of the sort.
Women do not necessarily "need" men and their attention, but Bridget makes it very clear that she wants it.
In the case of Bridget Jones, the fact that Darcy (a really REALLY attractive male) chooses to perform for Bridget confirms that she is indeed a woman.
By the way, I finally found a page that includes Sharon acting desperate like Bridget. Look on page 111 and you will see Sharon being annoyed with Bridget for calling her when she is waiting for "this guy she has been seeing" to ring. At last we know that Sharon is not a feminist completely.
First of all, these arguments are obviously in favor of calling Bridget Jones a work of art, simply because of the multitude of issues it raises, as our divergent discussion has shown - I stand somewhat corrected in my earlier assumptions. Furthermore, if you bring this discussion down to its rawest form, it is about the "man-woman dynamic", and this is a timeless problem, again, refuting my earlier allegations (in class) about this not being a "timeless" piece of literature.
Back to the arguments. I think most of the conversation after Ehlam's comment on the first page was pretty off-topic - that's fine though. However, Ehlam presented:
- The terrible portrayal of feminism and female independence in the novel (through Sharon, and through Pam (mother)): here are the page #s to illustrate this point:
- Feminism as pessimism (hehe): P.g 46 – “...Just called Sharon and recounted...etc.”
- Pg. 163 – reversal of man-woman traditional roles – the women criticize men for what were typically considered female weaknesses: i.e. “But you don’t go round wearing your commitment problem on your sleeve like every bloody man...” (i.e. men being extroverted vs. Traditionally thought introverted) -also note the women's decadence (trad. with males)
- No specific pages, too many, but Pam's terrible treatement of her daughter/husband due to her new found independece and femininity (i.e. feminism by definition, almost)
- examples Ehlam listed on previous page
[/LIST][LIST=1]
On the contrary, Helen Fielding is also disparaging of women who try to achieve womanhood by fulfilling a man. Note, that “wise people will say” (Pg. 52), hence the metaphysical overarching voice of the truth/narrator (Helen Fielding), that “Daniel should like [briget] just the way [she is]” (Pg. 52) – and yet, we see Bridget continually torturing herself with preparations for her dates:
- Pg. 27 – “Completely exhausted by entire day of date-preparation ... Ugh, ugh. Is it any wonder girls have no confidence?”
- Pg. 52 – “My back hurts, my head aches and my legs are bright red and covered in lumps of wax”
This self-masochism, almost, it seems is now only perpetrated by women (Daniel does not care how she looks, he just wants sex). Fielding indicates the futility/negativity of trying to fulfill the traditional role by showing how both of these attempts at making oneself a “woman” fail (i.e. her dates fail):- Pg. 27 – “Cannot believe it. Am stood up. Entire waste of whole day’s bloody effort... {and here the god-like voice of Fielding interjects}...one must not live one’s life through men.”
- Pg. 52 – “The only down points were: 1) immediately after itw as over Daniel said, “Damn. I meant to take the car...””
- examples Ehlam listed on previous page
So, what does this conclude to, for me? Next post :smile: .If you are not familiar with the notion of gender performativity, or its most basic concepts, I will direct you to Judith Butler's theory basics, which will hopefully serve for now.
As such, by thinking as a second-wave feminist, Bridget could hope to become a feminist – and by performing feminism, she would become woman. Conversely, by performing womanhood through shaving legs, being pregnant, and wearing a skirt to work to attract her boss, Bridget again attempts to become a woman. But Bridget tries to combine these two characteristics, which fails, as performativity is almost a one-direction process, in the sense that at best, we have to choose (usually subconsciously, only one ideology to pursue. We constantly see Bridget mixing some feminism (best examples are Bryanne’s analyses of weight, one moment caring, the other not caring, etc.) with subversions to masculinity (trad. role). Thus, Bridget tries to adopt BOTH extremes. This will make sense in a second.
Here, I will make a leap of faith, and assume that Fielding equates happiness with womanhood, as the two journeys throughout the novel are extremely integrated. Since Bridget IS happy at the end of the novel, “an excellent year’s progress” (271), we have assume that she achieved her womanhood as well (i.e. romantic ending, almost the damsel-in-distress scenario), and hence, neither extremist feminism, nor extreme subversion, are needed/effective. Fielding makes Bridget swing both ways, to portray the futility of both extremes. Thus, to put it very succinctly, Fielding is stating that performativity IS NOT NECESSARY to achieve womanhood/happiness.
So, what is necessary according to Fielding, what is the way? Via media (in the non-religious sense) – the typical British mindset of ignoring the extremes and cruising down the middle, with slight inclinations to both sides of the argument. Thus, Bridget reaffirms the complexity of the post-modern age (just as the book itself, its diary format, the ambiguous narrator, indicates) – nothing is black and white; binaries are outdated. It is no longer feminism VS traditional roles. Bridget is at the most content when she has a bit of both, as she does at the end – my favourite example being her having a boyfriend (hence not a single independent feminist), but neither having a fully fleged relationship with commitment (hence being a Married) – Fielding indicates this by her having a boyfriend “only for six days so far” (a rather medial, or intermittent period, with no extremes).
Thus, the British via media, Fielding is saying, is the right way to go, in the end – no need to choose, you can have it all, in moderation. You don’t have to be the Singleton/Sharon/Pam, or Judith/Magda/Marrieds.
Hopefully this is comprehensible – there are several large leaps of faith here (i.e. happiness=womanhood), but given the nature of the book, I am willing to go with them. Debate this if you disagree.
[LIST=1]
[*]10000BCE - men chuck rocks at each other and pound their chests with their fists, penises waving all around
[*]5000BCE - men build REALLY big (phallic) pyramids
[*]500BCE - seeing the futility of trying to mate with the female sex, men take to buggering their students, hoping to make the chicks jealous (this fails)
[*]300CE - gladiators and chariots, oh yeah, I have a team of 14 horses. Ben-Hur knew his shit.
[*]1340CE - "My boils are smaller than his, check them out" (Black Death, for the unaware)
[*]1594CE - "Romeo: Gentle Mercutio, put thy rapier up."
[*]1850CE - The bigger the factory, the bigger the smoke stacks - women sure going to see that from far off!
[*]1980CE - "I am a sensitive man, and I respect you - I love feminism. Let me just put the tip in."
[*]2008CE - "Just finished my MBA degree, I got cash, I got a Corvette, and am sensitive enough to enjoy the middle-class atmosphere of Starbucks. Let's talk politics, cultural reform, and sex."
[/LIST]
This is all to say that simply because the mode changed, it does not mean the underlying reasons have. Compare this to capitalism (aptly so, economic Darwinism) - even though we no longer trade in crude materials, and now have refined/obscure ways of engaging it (i.e. futures, stocks, options), it is still same at the core.
Made my point?
Ultimately, I think the problem is that - like Bridget says she does with Darcy and Elizabeth - we want these protagonists to be better than us. I've spoken with a number of people from the class (outside of our group) who said that the book just annoyed the hell out of them because Bridget was so whiney and almost never seemed to accomplish anything.
Well, in fact she does accomplish something - but she accomplishes it in her own way. Just like in Cold Comfort Farm, we may not agree with her ultimate decision just to give in and get a man, but it is what the character wants.
I think we wanted Bridget to be our (women, at least) ambassador somehow, and in her long rants about self-respect and working hard, to wind up 2 pounds heavier, still smoking, still drinking and in a relationship with a man, we see it as a failing. The important thing is that she does not.
Does Bridget become a woman? Maybe, she just doesn't become what we think she should be, and she's fine with that. Maybe that is the bigger point.
12000 y.a., we had perfectly serviceable stone tools which we probably used to make wooden tools. And archaeologists now believe that women made the first spearhead. Then a man came along and "improved" the design (i.e. made it bigger) thereby making it useless. (That's not to say that men made spears obsolete. I'm just saying there's evidence of this kind of thing happening more than once to individual spearheads.) Not to detract from Tomas's point, but to add to it. According to this relatively recent evidence, Tomas's point is right. (Never thought you'd read that from me, did you?) The big spearheads are precursors to the pyramids.
I'd like to thank Tomas for directing us toward Butler's sociological extrapolation of Darwin. This is a theory which is more convivial to modern currency. We had a discussion on the Facebook group about why a woman would dress sexy if she's not looking to pick up. The reason seems to me to be this: gender performance is personal as well as social. We get involved in the messages about performance we receive from the time we're born. We become emotionally attached to some if not all. Part of individuation, then, is to decide which acts in which fashions belong to which gender(s), and in turn the gender(s) with which one most closely identifies.
We've been taking a very Platonic tack to this, assuming that there's one pure image of woman, and one pure image of man, and that we're all trying to get to one or the other. What's more likely is that there are a number of gender archetypes -- like the man eater, the mother, the rapist, the father, for example -- which underly our consciousness. The more currency an archetype has in our culture at large, the more likely it will be for people to want to identify with it. However, when the current archetypes become extremely limited in our consciousness (for example: virgin/whore, and that's it) you get an unsatisfied group to whom the archetypes apparently apply. The anomalies in the group outweigh those truly identifying with the archetypes at large. Thus the need for a second wave of feminism.
When things change, many people aren't happy. Hence the backlash. That's not to say the backlash was all bad. It had it's good points, and some of the most apt criticism came from the women on whose backs the second wave had stood on in order to reach their goals.
Which brings us to Bridget Jones. Bridget Jones lacks individuation. To put it as Dr. Ogden put it, she's "clever as a rhinoceros." On the first of May, Bridget decides that she's pregnant, and begins eating as though she were. She has absolutely no evidence of this other than her late period, whose lateness could easily have been caused by stress. She eats a gigantic list of food (99-100) comprising 4200 calories, and justifies it under the guise of "eating for two," ignoring the fact that she still wouldn't be able to see her foetus, let alone require varied food for it. Bridget Jones, in effect, becomes her own child for the sake of stress eating. In this way, she performs the act of motherhood for herself. Why? Because she hasn't individuated; she's stuck, and it's because of her friends who push and pull her in two very distinct directions, which essentially boil down to a (post)feminist (meaning "better than feminist", right?) re-imagining of the virgin/whore dichotomy.
Perhaps Bridget belongs in neither of these roles. Her status as an outsider is endemic of the 1990s, and defies gender. Everyone was doing it well into their thirties. That's kind of disgusting, really, but I don't know if it's more disgusting that people hadn't (read: haven't) solved their problems by that age, or that we'd let it get to the point where we simply couldn't.
On the other hand, identity is constantly forming and reforming itself. It's part of our ... identity. Some people (certain psychiatric experts) don't think we settle in who we are until our forties. However, the way Bridget deals with her identity crisis -- see also, headless chicken -- is more common to my mind in a women half her age.
I know I've solved a lot of these problems for myself at a young age. I'm not able to have children so they're covered; I'm a lesbian, so men are covered; but as I am likely the candidate closest to Bridget's age (27 on Friday), I'm pretty sure I've got the sagging tits, the wrinkles, the lowering metabolism covered too. You know, I've heard that there's a Hindu theory about aging being related to flexibility or a lack thereof.
Anyhow, seeing as I'm way off base here, I'll send my last words out. Bridget Jones fails to achieve womanhood in whatever guise suits her because she has absolutely no clue, comes to absolutely no personal realisation about herself. Bridget has failed to individuate, and therefore cannot identify nor be identified as a woman -- feminist or not.
Just to tie this to (post) things here (i.e. modernism/feminism), if you note the direction our discussion has taken us, including some very extremist notions (refer people to first page), as well as some muted opinions and doubts, this discussion is very much like a Bridget Jones diary of our own (awwww), with each arguer representing some facet of society that clearly cannot be pegged down.
I suppose this is the last post before the hand-in, and as such, if you feel you NEED to continue the discussion, do so, but in any case, do not delete/edit this thread for some time to come.