![the secret of fascinating womanhood the secret of fascinating womanhood](https://miro.medium.com/focal/1200/900/50/55/1*Lj1DMCKPcQXrGY3FyzchlA.jpeg)
Remember, however, that Hugo was a man, a rugged man who wrote challenging sea stories, speaking more the language of men than women. She goes through Hugo’s Toilers of the Sea, which I’m not familiar with outside of it being a task-oriented hero tale, so I’m going to simply point out that Deruchette seems to be simply another example of a MPDG: She could open her own pickle jars, and that’s not feminine, apparently. It’s not that Agnes didn’t ask for David’s help when she needed him, it’s that she didn’t need David’s help that was the problem in Helen’s eyes. And what she identifies as “too unselfish” is not the same thing, it’s her independence and autonomy. However, this quote reinforces Helen’s primary argument: it is the woman’s fault if her husband doesn’t love her. I’ve known men and women who are much too modest, who rarely ever ask for help from their friends, who hate feeling like a burden to their friends in any way, and Agnes shares some of those qualities. She was “too unselfish,” which puzzles me exceedingly, because this is a disconnect from reality. If you had been more mindful of yourself, and less of me, when we grew up together, I think my heedless fancy would never have wandered from you.” She was too unselfish, for David said, “Agnes, ever my guide and best support.
She was to able to killer her own snakes, too hesitant to lean on David, didn’t appear to need his manly care and protection. It’s not David’s fault that he loved Agnes while married to Dora, and loved Dora while married to Agnes– it’s primarily Agnes’ fault for not filling the void in his life: She even acknowledges that he loved these women at the same time, but instead of working with the tension and conflict that Dickens’ was building into his text using David’s untempered naivety, she simply blames it on the female characters. She argues that Agnes possesed all the Angelic qualities, and Dora possessed all the Human qualities. However, it helped when I realized that by “childlike,” she was basically talking about an MPDG, although that term hadn’t been coined when she wrote this and she’d probably deny the connection, mostly because the MPDGs that appear (especially in film) are portrayed as “clever,” and that isn’t a quality men admire.Īnyway, she begins her poor literary analysis by comparing Dora and Agnes from David Copperfield. “Childlikeness” is something she emphasizes is necessary for all women, everywhere, and personally, I find that incredibly creepy. This dichotomy becomes increasingly frustrating as we get deeper into the book, but the trait she’s going to focus on in this chapters is girlishness. Women are inclined to appreciate poise, talent, intellectual gifts, and cleverness of personality, whereas men admire girlishness, tenderness, sweetness of character, vivacity, and the ability to understand men.” She opens up this chapter by contrasting what men and women tend to appreciate about women. They’re lobotomized and infantilized MPDGs. Yes, ladies and gents, the Ideal Woman is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, only worse. However, she ignores all context, any historically relevant information, and at times, the plot of the novel in order to make her point.īut, before we get into all of that, you should watch this:Īlso, I love Anita and Feminist Frequency. I don’t mind that she’s gone to literature as her examples– the pieces that she’s chosen (Thackeray’s Vanity Fair, Dickens’ David Copperfield, Hugo’s Toilers of the Sea) are fantastic works, and reflections of their times. She’s essentially proof-texting these women, ripping them out of context and refusing to give us information that would be useful in making any kind of decision. I realize that not every single person has gone through a graduate program in English, but her approach to literature is maddening. This chapter, like the previous ones, introduces the literary characters that she will continue to reference through the rest of the book, and, just like last time, her presentation of these characters is disingenuous at best. The qualities listed under “Angelic” are “Understands Men,” “Inner Happiness,” “Character,” and “Domestic Goddess.” Under “Human” are “Femininity,” “Radiates Happiness,” “Has Radiant Health,” and “Childlike.” However, this diagram is just a summation of the ground she’s already covered, so let’s tackle that.