Sexism in "The Treatment of Bibi Haldar"

In class, we touched briefly on the sexism in Jhumpa Lahiri’s “The Treatment of Bibi Haldar.” There mere fact that getting married and having a kid is the “cure” to a woman’s malady is problematic. This makes it seem like all women just need to find a husband and give birth, and all their problems will go away. The community in “The Treatment of Bibi Haldar” believes this wholeheartedly, and is indicative of the patriarchal town depicted in the short story.
The community in “The Treatment of Bibi Haldar” is obsessed with marriage. When all the other women in the town are getting married, Bibi fears she is “without promise of a future” (160). Her worry about getting married leads to anxiety attacks. Bibi and the other women in the community want to find husbands because they want “to be spoken for, protected, placed on her path in life” (160). In relationships, men have all the power and control. In fact, it seems a woman almost loses her identity when she no longer speaks for herself and is instead “spoken for.” Talking about weddings, searching for potential bachelors, and planning seem to consume the female life. This depiction of women makes it seem like their sole goal in life is marriage.

When married, however, the wives in Bibi Haldar’s town are stuck doing traditionally feminine housework. Women look forward to getting married so they can “serve suppers and scold servants” (160). Bibi prepares for marriage by scrawling down recipes to prepare for her future husband (162). Haldar’s wife later says Bibi cannot be married; “the girl knows nothing about anything, speaks backward, is practically thirty, can’t light a coal stove, can’t boil rice, can’t tell the difference between fennel and a cumin seed. Imagine her attempting to feed a man!” (163) The narrator says “Bibi had never taught to be a woman” because she had never learned these essential skills, such as embroidering slipcovers or crocheting shawls (162). A woman’s femininity and identity is equated with being able to do domestic chores and please her husband.

Jhumpa Lahiri or Lorrie Moore?

When reading Jhumpa Lahiri’s short story “Sexy,” I felt like I was reading the collection Self-Help by Lorrie Moore. Moore is renowned for her main female characters, often known as “Lorrie Moore women.” Miranda, the main character of “Sexy,” fits the description of a Lorrie Moore woman almost perfectly.

In terms of setting, Miranda’s story takes place in Boston, an urban area on the east coast. Lorrie Moore’s characters also live in similar locations, such as New York City. Like Lorrie Moore’s characters, Miranda has a fine, but relatively dull job working at a radio station soliciting pledges. The job doesn’t seem to excite Miranda, and there doesn’t seem to be much opportunity for upward mobility or growth. Female narrators in Self Help also often struggle with self-confidence issues, such as the overweight mother in “To Fill.” Miranda, while relatively confident, still has her focalized narration describe her facial features as having “a narrow, egg-shaped head that rose to a prominent point. Her features, too, were narrow, with nostrils so slim that they appeared to have been pinched with a clothespin” (87). Her lack of confidence is also reflected when she goes to the Indian grocery to see if Dev’s wife is beatiful (99). Finally, Lorrie Moore women are characterized by their “cute meets” with men, such as meeting at a bus stop in big coats on a pea-soupy night in Moore’s “How to be an Other Woman.” Seemingly taken out of a romantic comedy, Miranda and Dev meet at a makeup counter where they both go out of their way to talk to each other (87).

Importantly, both Lorrie Moore women and Miranda do morally questionable things. For example, many of the Self-Help stories surround stealing or infidelity. Similarly, Miranda engages in a relationship with a married man. Although she does break it off in the end, for the majority of the story, Miranda tries to not think about the wife and how the cheating affects her. This could objectively make Miranda seem like a horrible person, but, like Lorrie Moore women, we get the story focalized through her perspective, so we are much more understanding and thoughtful about her situation. Learning about Miranda’s backstory and loneliness makes it very difficult to judge her for her actions, just like the Lorrie Moore women in Self-Help.

Faults in the American Educational System

Jhumpa Lahiri’s short story “When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine” focuses on the life of a young Indian-American girl named Lilia. Like most children, school is a key part of Lilia’s life. However, “When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine” criticizes the American education system, particularly its history lessons for not having a broad world view. Lilia describes her schooling: “That year, and every year, it seemed, we began by studying the Revolutionary War” (27). Lilia proceeds to explain how she takes field trips to American monuments, makes dioramas of American historical events, makes finger puppets of American presidents, and can recite the original thirteen colonies and their capitals (26). The American education system is depicted as being redundant, simple, and narrowly focused.

It seems that both Lilia and her parents recognize this educational inadequacy. When the war begins in Dacca, no one at school even acknowledges the huge event that rocks Lilia’s world. Lilia remembers, “We continued to study the American Revolution, and learned about the injustices of taxation without representation, and memorized passages from the Declaration of Independence” (33). Similarly, a blatant depiction of the American-centric education system occurs when Lilia is working in the school library. She is curious about Pakistan, and sneaks off to read a book called Pakistan: A Land and Its People. When her teacher, Mrs. Kenyon, finds her researching another country instead of the surrender at Yorktown, she says there is “no reason to consult” the book (33). Lilia’s parents also seem to recognize the educational inadequacy, such as when her father questions, “What exactly do they teach you at school? Do you study history? Geography?” (26)

In my opinion, the issues about the American education system discussed in “When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine” are still applicable today. Speaking from my own experience, I feel like I had a solely American-focused education throughout elementary and middle school. We focused on things like memorizing the capitals of all 50 states and singing the names of all 44 presidents, but most students couldn’t identify more than five other countries on a map. I think a more broad, inclusive education system would be much more beneficial for our students, and certainly for Lilia.

Yunior's Confidence

I saw Junot Diaz’s “How to Date a Browngirl, Blackgirl, Whitegirl, or Halfie” as a story largely about confidence issues. Yunior’s dating guide for teenage boys attempts to come across as self-assured and suave, but beneath the surface, Yunior is really a self-conscious young boy.

The mere fact that Yunior has to create directions for dating demonstrates his lack of confidence. Dating, making moves, talking to girls, and talking to their parents all seem like skills that would come naturally to men like Papi and Rafa. Yunior, however, has to make a concentrated, focused effort to come across as cool. His dating guide is technical, nerdy, and forced, and is definitely not something that a confident, self-assured man would create.

Although the story itself is only a mere six pages, readers are exposed to various aspects of Yunior’s self-consciousness. Before the date begins, Yunior scours the house, cleaning and hiding things. He moves the “government cheese” out of sight and takes down embarrassing childhood photos of himself (143). Yunior makes a very concentrated effort to present himself in a cool, confident way. Similarly, when he greets the girl’s mother, he says “run a hand through your hair like the whiteboys do even though the only thing that runs easily through your hair is Africa” (145). Here, Yunior is trying to be someone he’s not in order to appear more cool. Then, at dinner, Yunior says he is “not good at talking to people [he] doesn’t know,” indicating that he is shy and self-conscious (146). Finally, when Yunior brings the girl back to his house, he advises, “tell her that you love her hair, that you love her skin, her lips, because, in truth, you love them more than you love your own” (147). Yunior doesn’t love himself and his own features, and he loves a girl that he’s just met more than he loves himself. Although Yunior tries to come across as a cocky, confident, experienced advisor, he is truly a shy, nerdy, self-conscious teenage boy.

Second-Person Significance

Unlike any other short stories we have read this semester, Lorrie Moore’s book Self Help frequently utilizes the second-person point of view. In stories where characters are often committing controversial actions, such as being an “other” woman, the second-person narrative voice makes it harder for readers to criticize and judge the standardly immoral behavior. The style connects you with the narrator, forces you to understand their thinking, and makes you evaluate things from their point of view. Specifically, Moore’s short story “How” exemplifies the execution and effect of second-person narration.

The narrator in “How” is a controversial character who would typically be easy to judge. She is a woman who wants to leave her boyfriend while he is sick and dying. However, with the direct, candid, unfiltered second-person point of view, readers are able to put themselves in her position and understand her thinking. For example, from the beginning of the story, we are told that the woman feels “bored” in the relationship; she moves in with him “hesitantly, with ambivalence” (55). Before the boyfriend even gets sick, the woman is already feeling “cranky,” “tired,” and “suffocated” (57). In this constraining relationship, it makes sense why the woman has affairs and tries to leave. The second-person point of view is directed at you, forcing you to put yourself in the narrator’s position. The style forces the reader to think about how they would morally handle the situation and hurdles presented, unlike in a detached, objective third-person style. You don’t necessarily see the narrator’s actions as right, but the second-person narrative makes it harder to judge her choices.

Additionally, after the boyfriend gets sick, the second-person style makes the narrator’s guilt, shame, and internal struggle apparent. For example, when considering leaving him, the narrator notes, “the houseplants will appear to have chosen sides. Some will thrust stems at you like angry limbs. They will seem to caw like crows. Others will simply sag” (62). This quote demonstrates the extreme guilt and struggle that the narrator faces. Similarly, lines like “the thought will occur to you that you are waiting for him to die” show the brutal honesty and intimacy of the second-person narration (60). Although the reader will not necessarily agree with the narrator’s eventual choice to leave her boyfriend, the second-person narrative makes the choice much more understandable and complex.

Ostracized Outsider

James Baldwin’s The Outing is largely a story about an ostrichsized young boy. Johnnie feels like an outsider in various aspects of his life including his sexuality, religious beliefs, place in his family, and place with his friends.

As we saw in The Rockpile, Johnnie is in a difficult situation because he is Gabriel’s only stepchild; “a stranger, living, unalterable testimony to his mother’s days in sin” (22). Gabriel is a hugely powerful figure who blatantly favors his other children over Johnnie. To his wife, Gabriel says Johnnie’s “pride is running away with him” and “that proud demon is just eating him up. (...) Be the best thing in the world if the Lord would take his soul” (40). With Gabriel’s hatred for him, Johnnie is left ostracized and without a place in his family.

Additionally, Johnnie is confused and lost with his friends. Gabriel completely disregards and disrespects Johnnie when he says David is Roy’s friend, not Johnnie’s. Then, at the end of the story, Elizabeth, Roy, Johnnie, and Sylvia disappear, leaving Johnnie alone. Similarly, Johnnie feels like an outsider in terms of his sexuality. Johnnie and David have a trapped romantic relationship, but in his super religious, conservative context, Johnnie knows this secret would be catastrophic. Finally, Johnnie feels ostracized within his religion. His sexuality coupled with the fact that he doesn’t know if he’s “saved” leaves him questioning his religion in the midst of a group of avid believers. In all of these ways, Johnnie is going through a challenging time in which he feels like an ostrich ized outsider and is struggling to find his place.

Adult Atmosphere

When reading J.D. Salinger’s Nine Stories, I noticed a striking similarity between The Laughing Man and its successor, Down at the Dinghy. In both stories, the key point of contention is young children bumping up against adult realities. The Comanches of The Laughing Man learn, through Mary Hudson’s presence, that the Chief is not the happy, flawless, predictable man they make him out to be. Similarly, in Down at the Dinghy, four-year-old Lionel hears his maid Sandra call his father “a big-sloppy-kike” and he has to learn how to react to this (86). Both stories address young children accidentally entering the adult sphere.

At the beginning of The Laughing Man, The Chief is described as being secure, predictable, and having “many achievements and virtues” (57). The narrator describes: “Every one of us, from the smallest hoodlum to the biggest, loved and respected him” (57). To the Comanches, the Chief is a perfect, larger-than-life figure. However, Mary Hudson’s entrance into the story changes this perspective. The boys see the Chief as “very nervous” and anxious when he waits for her (64). Then, when Mary Hudson wants to play ball, the Chief swears at the boys for the first time; “I said I didn’t need a center fielder. The Chief asked me what the hell did I mean I didn’t need a center fielder. I was shocked. It was the first time I had heard the Chief swear” (65). When Mary Jane and the Chief get in a fight, the Chief is upset and snaps at the kids. The Chief ends The Laughing Man story by killing off the main character, effectively devastating the Comanches.

Similarly, in Down at the Dinghy, Lionel hears his maid Sandra call his Jewish father “a big-sloppy-kike” (86). Although Lionel doesn’t know what “kike” means, he recognizes it as an insult and it upsets him. The crux of the story is about an adult insult that leads to Lionel running away to the dinghy. Kids, such as the narrator of The Laughing Man and Lionel, live innocent lives in a child’s world. However, there are instances where they accidentally enter the adult world of relationship issues, prejudices, and insults. These moments have drastic effects on the young children.

Suspicious Seymour

After reading J.D. Salinger’s short story A Perfect Day for Bananafish, we had a discussion in class on if Seymour was creepy or predatory in his relationship with Sybil. Personally, I see his relationship with Sybil as inappropriate and a bit scary. I completely understand that Seymour is lonely and seeking a simple, fun relationship, which Sybil is able to provide. However, I think his interactions with the three year old girl are a bit disturbing and hair-raising.

First, Seymour Glass is a young man (assumably in his 20s) while Sybil is a three year old girl. This is not an age and gender relationship that you see often, so it raises some eyebrows right away. In Seymour’s language, I can definitely see a teasing tone that one would often use with small children. However, I don’t think his predatory-seeming lines should be excused just for this reason. Seymour’s language and actions take a few steps past a “normal” playful relationship with a three year old.

Once Sybil arrives where Seymour is lying on the beach, he says, “I was waiting for you,” which is a creepy phrase for a grown man to say (11). He has a beautiful wife back at the hotel, yet Seymour has been waiting to play with this innocent three year old. Seymour proceeds to call Sybil “baby” and “my love,” (later) which are creepy and inappropriate phrases (11, 16). He remarks on her bikini, telling her to “come a little closer” so that he can see what color it truly is (12). Even if he has a playful, childish tone while saying these words, the language itself is predatory and concerning. Additionally, the fact that the innocent three year old obeys his commands worries me. It seems that Seymour has a great deal of power in this relationship, and like a normal three year old, Sybil agrees with anything an adult says. Seymour then remarks on Sybil’s looks again, saying “you’re looking fine” (12). Then, in the conversation about Sybil’s jealousy of Sharon Lipschutz, both of their language implies an unconventional relationship. Sharon sat on Seymour’s lap while he was playing piano, and Seymour says he “pretended she was [Sybil]”(13). This is an extremely odd and inappropriate thing to say about having a three year old sit on your lap. Then, he says Sharon mixes “memory and desire” (13). The kind of “desire” Seymour references is unclear, but totally unacceptable to say about a toddler.

Seymour barely knows Sybil; it seems that he has never met her mom or dad. I think his actions inappropriate considering the apparent depth of his relationship with the toddler. Examining his physical actions, things take a turn for the worse. Throughout the story, Seymour is very physical and touches Sybil various places on her body: he grabs her ankles three times, holds her hand, picks her up, lays her down on her stomach, and kisses the bottom of her foot. These touches are inappropriate. Personally, I work a great deal with children doing regular babysitting, working at my church nursery, and as a swim instructor. I have children that I know very well and I know their parents, too. I love these kids! But there is a certain line with children that you should not cross, and I think Seymour definitely does this when he kisses Sybil’s foot. I think Sybil knows that there is something wrong with this, too, when she responds with “hey!,” but she is too young to fully understand or process Seymour’s actions. Additionally and significantly, Seymour’s many physical gestures toward Sybil are never returned. For example, at one point, Sybil “stopped walking and yanked her hand away from him.”

In no way am I trying to say that Seymour is a serious child predator or threat to Sybil’s life. However, below the surface, I think his language and actions suggest some sort of romantic or sexual desire that is inappropriate in a relationship with a three year old (especially with one who he barely knows). Also, Seymour is a war veteran with some sort of psychological issues, which is significant in possibly explaining some of his actions. There are definitely two ways to read Seymour’s actions, and I just thought I would explain my perspective. Sorry for the long post!

Dysfunctional Doctor Dynamic

When reading Ernest Hemingway’s short story The Doctor and the Doctor’s Wife, I was struck by the odd dynamic between the two characters referenced in the title -- the doctor and his wife. The title makes the story seem like it’s going to revolve around these two characters, but the wife is only present for a small part of this story. Thus, it’s important to pay close attention to the doctor and his wife’s limited interactions.

The doctor and the wife seem like a very odd, mismatched couple. He is a medical professional -- a man of science. One of the first facts that we learn about his wife is that she is a Christian Scientist. This sect of Christianity is known for avoiding medical treatment and trying to solve all ailments through prayer instead. From this information alone, it seems like the doctor and his wife have completely different ideologies on how they view the world.

Additionally, relating to the wife’s religious beliefs, she tries to preach to her husband and shouts moral proverbs at him. After her husband returns home and she hears of his “row” with Dick Boulton, she tells him, “Remember, that he who ruleth his spirit is greater than he that taketh a city” (25). The husband does not respond to this comment and instead starts to aggressively clean his shotgun.

Overall, the couple seems to have a unhealthy, frustrated relationship. The wife’s probing questions seem annoying, and the doctor is frustrated with being hassled by her. He gives her curt answers such as “yes,” “no,” and “nothing much” (26). Additionally, the whole conversation is in two separate rooms. In fact, the doctor and his wife never even see each other! This seems like there is some sort of disconnect and distance in their relationship. Similarly, the wife seems to live her life obsessing and fretting over her husband. In the middle of the day, the wife is “lying with the blinds drawn” in a room, waiting for her husband to come home. When he arrives, she bombards him with a litany of questions. Finally, before the husband leaves, the wife asks him, “If you see Nick, dear, will you tell him that his mother wants to see him?” (27). The doctor finds Nick and delivers the message, but Nick doesn’t want to see his mother. The doctor allows Nick to disregard and disrespect his mother’s wishes by not going to see her.

The doctor and his wife seem to have an odd, unhealthy, and frustrating relationship. I think this dynamic will be key to keep in mind as stories continue to unfold about the doctor, his wife, and Nick.

Setting is Significant

In the short story Hills Like White Elephants by Ernest Hemingway, the setting of the story plays a significant role. The entirety of the story is told in one location: the bar at a train station, looking out at the tracks, the hills, and the valley. The location of the train station represents how the man and woman are at a crossroads. They need to make a huge decision: whether or not to get the abortion. They are at a crucial time for decision-making, and using a train station as the setting enhances this pressure. The man wants to take the train to get the abortion, but the woman isn’t as sure. The two train tracks going in different directions represent the two choices, one being what the man wants, and the other being what the woman wants.

Additionally, the scenery outside of the train station plays a key role. When the man and woman are arguing about the abortion, the girl turns away and looks out on the surroundings: “Across, on the other side, were fields of grain and trees along the banks of the Ebro. Far away, beyond the river, were, mountains. The shadow of a cloud moved across the field of grain and she saw the river through the trees” (3). After looking at the lush, vibrant, diverse, and lively nature, the girl blurts out, “we could have all of this,” meaning that she could have the baby (3). Later in the story, the girl again looks out on the scenery: “the girl looked across at the hills on the dry side of the valley” (6). The lush, beautiful side of the valley contrasts directly with the dry, dead side of the valley. These sides represent the two choices the girl can make in this situation. It seems that the girl wants the beautiful side full of life, but it’s unclear what she decides in the end.
Overall, the setting is pretty stagnant. It is described as being “very hot” with “no shade and no trees” and a “warm wind” (1, 2). There isn’t much excitement going on; it’s not like there are trains whizzing by or people bustling around. The scene is hot, dry, and dull. This stagnant, sluggish setting represents the man and the woman’s situation. They each have different opinions, and have reached a standstill. They have exhausted the topic of abortion so much that the woman desperately begs the man, “would you please please please please please please please stop talking?” (6) In many ways, the setting both represents and enhances what is going on in the story. By examining the setting, we allow for a deeper reading of Hills Like White Elephants.