A Man Looking at A Woman Looking at Men Looking at Women, A Review — Part 2
2. Siri Hustvedt’s main achievement in this collection of essays: creating a bridge of comprehension between scientists and literary intellectuals. Hustvedt’s critique of Capitalist patriarchy and its gender biases. My personal reflections about the impact of the #MeToo! Movement in current women-men relationships at all levels.
In her introduction, Hustvedt talked about a ‘Gulf of mutual incomprehension between scientists and literary intellectuals,’ (Hustvedt, ix). She talks about scientists having a hard time probing literary works and not getting far, where one said that, “Dickens’ work is transparent and Rilke is too opaque to give pleasure,” (ix). Yet, “C. P. Snow was a physicist, who had turned novelist. In the end, he asked the representatives of ‘the traditional culture’ to describe the second law of thermo-dynamics, which was met with negativity and coldness,” (ix)
Pombo i Sallés said that one of Hustvedt’s greatest contributions in the book was to highlight and denounce capitalism’s negative effect by dividing literary intellectuals and empirical scientists into two groups and saying that a person could be either and not both at the same time. Pombo i Sallés said that Hustvedt further questions why there were gender biases, citing the example of her famous writer husband versus herself as more capable. To which I thought, well, I had never heard of her before her book and I have known of Auster for years. But, I had also thought I had read one of his books, but it turns out I was unable to recognize any of the titles. So, perhaps he has been well-marketed and she has not. When I looked briefly at her list, I thought, well, they weren’t all novels, per se. They appeared as essayish, more scientific. Who knows which sell more, but maybe this is the reason she feels less appreciated. If anyone, however, can be considered to have bridged the literary intellectual and empirical scientific divide, I imagine that she has. But, often we expect the truth about facts and figures to be present in literary works, if for no other reason than to help literary works to be perceived as having realistic fervor. As a man, I find the argument a silly one, where people buy books based on their desire, and publishers, you would think, would want to sell books. But, I have also never thought of reading a book simply because it was written by a man. In fact, how many of you did not know who had written an article in a newspaper, for example, while you were reading it? I do admit that recently I had never considered that women may no longer be interested in male fantasy, which I feel and will admit that many books that I am familiar with have contained this. That’s a threat to me in the sense that fewer will most likely be published to appeal to a post-#MeToo! Movement world. I am also of the opinion that I want to write books that are so well-written that people of both genders would find them cathartic. After all, I feel that is what a book should aspire to do, not so much to be conscious of whether they bridge a gap between fiction and non-fiction or gender. Books like A.S. Byatt’s Possession and Donna Tartt’s The Secret History are those kinds of books. I remember reading both and thinking writing cannot be better. I was enthralled! Glued to every page! The idea of fiction and non-fiction were present in both, where in the former it was a made-up story of two poets who fell in love and the later seemed to talk about real students in a Latin class, who ended up in a Pagan debacle that seemed to explain well the peer pressure inherent in high school.
Pombo i Sallés clarifies her point: “The only thing I am questioning here is when you say that Hustvedt’s reason for not being appreciated as much as her husband Auster would be that “Perhaps he has been well-marketed and she has not.” Even if so (which seems to be the most plausible cause as you say), why does a man come to Hustvedt and tell her he thought her book had been written by Auster even though the book cover said Hustvedt? That is the point I wanted to make and, if this really happened, that man clearly uttered a sexist statement. However, I read the book long ago and I do not remember exactly in which essay she [says] that.”
So, the question remains why would a woman take such a man seriously? I guess this is why people send things to the Library of Congress before they publish. But, also I doubt Mr. Auster would be writing in this manner. As I mentioned in an argument about the United States Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s assertion about her fellow candidate Bernie Sanders having said he did not think a woman could be president. Even if true, the assertion is so absurd as to not deserve attention. I went on to explain that perhaps if Bernie were entertaining the idea, it would be because men would not be so disjointed by a woman, for example, by telling him that a man could not be president. This is a kin to sandbox name calling. And yes our current president is in no way presidential, probably an intentional ploy to throw people off the actual agenda, like getting all those judges in place, causing the public to mistrust the government, media, and other treasonous intentions. Sometimes, that shit by women is mind boggling. I mean, come on Warren. You are clearly too immature to be president. Whether or not a woman can be president has nothing to do with her being a woman, unless women use their sex as an excuse as she has done. She disqualified herself from my list of possible candidates.
If however, it can be argued that our president in a similar way was elected because he seems to represent the complaining witnesses of America’s White-dominated downfall, then sure Warren’s complain has validity. After all, who is a better example of children occupying the White House? Still, we are hoping to rectify that in the next election. However, we all know that with so many citizens, who find solace in Trump, the chances of him winning again are great! So, Let’s Make America Great Again and Again.
“By the way,” Pombo i Sallés said, “the following lines are one of your most fierce critiques of Capitalism and, at the same time, a strong defense of women’s rights. Mario, this is your #MeToo! defense:
‘She is almost always concerned with how she looks. She engages in meaningless banter with her best friends in open-air venues, and she never quite connects with his eyes but expects him to see her and to engage her and this is all that is going on against the backdrop of capitalism, a male construct, supported by women to rise above other men by enslaving them too, to keep tabs on their growth and competitiveness.
‘No, if women want to be free, they have to fight this greed and fear. The sense of scarcity causes men to take what does not belong to them. They have nothing else but the occasional stray broken from some relationship that revealed dependency and thus ugly truth.’”
‘Taken from: https://savioni.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/i-am-a-paragraph/
Pombo i Sallés said, ‘Why not include these lines in your paper even though that story does not belong to A Man Looking At Women, but to This Way To The End?
