Gone With the Wind

[hellsapoppin]

With all that in mind, how we look at things change. As an example, when have you ever seen the word "sexist" used against Miss Scarlett? Despite the fact that such a term is clearly warranted, I never have seen that word against her until I used the term. Previously, I mentioned that she declared that she wished the war would go on longer in the hope that the South would win. She resented the fact that young men of draft age had not enlisted and were not fighting. When Atlanta was being abandoned as the Rebs were retreating, she got angry that they didn't stand up and fight to the death. When Miss Melly got sick during her pregnancy she goes hysterical, pushes everybody around, runs into the encampment used by sick/injured reb forces, and demands that Dr Meade drop what he's doing in order to help her sister in law. In her twisted sexist little mind, the life of one woman is of greater importance than those 100+ men who were dying and in great agony - all of whom had been sacrificing for her and her archaic, privileged old South lifestyle.* Somehow, she feels these men are of lower value than slaves as not only must they work for her good, they must DIE for her good as well. She is the worse sexist anywhere.

Only in the modern era would you see her described in such a fashion. And she well deserves such a designation. Thus, we learn from the past and our views evolve. That is one of the biggest reasons why we must not censor.







*thereafter she demands that Captain Butler bail her out of the situation by using a carriage to take her away - she hates his guts but does not hesitate to use him when convenient. She never stop using people, especially men in order to get her way.

[bounty]

just a quickie so I don't get too far behind poppin---I think your description above of scarlett is more fittingly described as "self-serving."

its also somewhat consistent with traditional gender roles. it is a mans job to protect, and fight if necessary, and its a woman's job to create the home so to speak.

one could argue that traditional gender roles are "sexist" but I would call that a more nuanced (if not bastardization) of the word.

[hellsapoppin]

bastardization

Interesting choice of words. Re proper roles, it will be recalled that Scarlett and her crowd are all professing Christians (she makes repeated avowals like "as God is my witness"). As such they are required to love everyone, to turn the other cheek, to self sacrifice for everyone including their enemies, and be at peace with all men. This is something she and them do not adhere to. Scarlett is the only one who expects the Rebs to die for her. None of the other women do.

Scarlett shoots a Yankee trooper who had put his gun into his belt and posed no threat to her. This was cold blooded murder. She proceeds to discard the body as if it was a lump of turds. Then when the war was clearly a lost cause, she still persists that Rebs continue to fight to death rather than retreat. This is a demand that is beyond protection, it is downright suicide. Thus, she continues to show that she is willing to have others sacrificed for her good. Not merely for her "protection". After hostilities have ceased and the war was over, ragged Rebs start to march home with many starving, dying of thirst or because of wounds - they stop by the mansion at Tara seeking some comfort. Scarlett damns the old southern culture of "hospitality" where she is required to give them at least some food and comfort. These men sacrificed for her and she is still tortured in her mind over having to lift a finger in their favor! By contrast, Melly is only too happy to give the returning Rebs aid and comfort as she believes Northern households are doing the same for Rebs and Yanks returning from combat.

Bottom line is the term "sexist" is not bastardization. It is appropriate as she is not merely succumbing to traditional southern roles. She is not looking for men to exercising their traditional roles as protectors. She expects them to commit suicide for her and is exploiting them for her selfish good.

[hellsapoppin]

Am now up to about page 530 and have been looking for passages that may be construed as "racist". Up to now I have not found any which may have declared that slavery was somehow a "good" thing or God ordained. True, Mitchell fails to show its inherent evil and that it was antithetical to biblical teaching. For example, those of you who have read the bible know that it teaches "he who steals a man, enslaves him, or attempt to sell him shall be put to death" ~ Exodus 21:16. The slave trade existed because innocents were kidnapped in Africa and forced into slavery. Because of that, those who practiced this were to be executed according to biblical teaching. Again, while she did not point this out, thus far in my reading, she did not make any blatant declaration that it was a good thing.

But there is this: when the Freedmen's Bureau and the Republican party started to take over in Georgia, she wrote that as part of their campaign they "kept the Negroes stirred up with tales of cruelty perpetrated by the whites and, in a section long famed for the affectionate relations between slaves and slave owners, hate and suspicion began to grow." {page 522} Hmmm. Up to that time Scarlett bemoaned the fact that slaves were abandoning the region and fleeing with Yankee troops. That because of this she could no longer find field hands to do the heavy farm work. That in fact some of the overseers were now emerging as controllers in some of the mansions of the (former) slave owners. If the ex slaves had been so happy in their submissive roles, why were they abandoning the plantations in such droves? Obviously, none were happy in these demeaning roles. Freedom was their choice as is to be expected by anyone with even the slightest degree of common sense.

Thus far, unless I am missing something, this appears to be the only passage where Mitchell makes some form of apologia for slavery. I will continue to look for other passages that may be interpreted that way and welcome any other excerpts from others that may illustrate this.

[bounty]

if you start with the premise that men going to war and women being in charge of the home isn't sexist, then I don't know how the term becomes appropriately applicable just because scarlett wants more from the men (fighting a suicide mission) than others might want. we are only talking about a change in degree here, not a change in kind.

if you start with the premise that men going to war and women being charge of the home IS sexist, then I would call THAT a bastardization of the term.

one tough thing poppin, and I mean this gently, is your understanding of the Christian faith doesn't seem to be as wide or deep as it needs to be to stay out of trouble with your interpretation of it.

we get at least some of our constitution and therefore modern law, from john locke. one of lockes positions as concerns our property (especially meaning our home) is that we are justified in killing home invaders. its likely this view predated locke. either way it forms the basis in the castle doctine vs duty to retreat arguments we have going on at the state level to this day.

we are, it seems, at least in some agreement that scarlett is very self-serving. I would add to that though, her compassion or lack of compassion isn't gendered per se, its rather just very personal.

[hellsapoppin]

if you start with the premise that men going to war and women being charge of the home IS sexist, then I would call THAT a bastardization of the term

Well, I didn't. So by your standards that let's me off the hook.

As for understanding the bible, it is superior to that of most preachers. If you find anything wrong with my interpretation, show me where it is and I will gladly answer it. So far you have criticized, but you have not actually pointed to any deficiency in the subject. I may have mentioned before that my jurisprudence paper in law school dealt with biblical law and Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. A Jewish law professor in my school told me it was the finest writing he had ever seen on the subject. So go ahead - show me these alleged "deficiencies". You will have an uphill battle the likes of which you've never imagined before.


Re John Locke, he was a Christian adhering to the concept of sola Scriptura. In fact, he was a theologian whose teachings greatly influenced the anti slavery movement in England. The bible teaches that slavery was permissible as vanquishment in war and when one contracted oneself into slavery because of debt. This was affirmed by Locke. However, the crime of man stealing was condemned in Exodus 21:16 and 1 Tim 1:10. Thus, the slave trade as practiced in the Confederacy was anti biblical. This is why contrary to certain mythic belief, Locke worked AGAINST slavery:

Locke actively worked to undermine slavery in Virginia while heading a Board of Trade created by William of Orange following the Glorious Revolution. He specifically attacked colonial policy granting land to slave owners and encouraged the baptism and Christian education of the children of enslaved Africans to undercut a major justification of slavery—that they were heathens who possessed no rights.[48] In his Two Treatises of Government, Locke provided a justification for slavery that could never be met, thus rendering invalid all forms of slavery that existed. Moreover, because slavery is invalid, there is a moral injunction to try to throw off and escape from it.

source: Wiki



Bottom line, if you want to excuse slavery or provide some from of rationale for the way it was practiced in the south, Locke is NOT the person whose teachings you want to invoke.

[hellsapoppin]

"kept the Negroes stirred up with tales of cruelty perpetrated by the whites and, in a section long famed for the affectionate relations between slaves and slave owners, hate and suspicion began to grow."

I should add some amplification on this: at the time Uncle Tom's Cabin ((1852) was written many anti-abolitionist novels were written to counter its teachings on the inhumanity of slavery. These delusional writings actually taught that slavery was a good thing, that it taught Christianity and civilization to enslaved blacks. That slavery was god ordained (despite the bible's teachings) and that one should be happy to be enslaved. Many of these ridiculous stories actually taught that slaves were happy to be that way. That after the Civil War, many blacks went back to their former owners and begged to be enslaved again!





Over the years critics have equated GWTW with these blatantly racist and pro slavery writings which were called plantation genre. Except for that quote above, I have not seen any blatant call for or attempted justification of slavery in the novel. But that line above does raise an alarm and I will continue to search for more such misguided ideas in the book.

[Danik 2016]

Just read the arguments of both of you Poppins and Bounty and I am fascinated by the variety and the development of the arguments.
However I feel I have to at least partly defend poor Scarlett. Trying to be consistent albeit not as systematic as Poppins, here are just some thoughts:

I think one interesting factor about Scarlett is how the character blends certain traditional values with a need of escape from them.
Traditional values taught Scarlett that women were born to conquer and marry men and that men have to serve women (at least during their wooing time). Being a willful lady Scarlett has learned to use men much more than it would be acceptable for a young
unmarried girl. To complete this she has several romantic notions of what a woman should expect of a man.

With the disgrace of her family and the breaking out of war all this is potencialized. Scarlett sets out to save herself and the people that are close to her by doing what she does best: make men serve her and marry some of them for practical purposes and financial purposes, as she wasn't educated to work. Her strength lies in wanting to influence her destiny actively, but it's there also that she shocs other people because she doesn't have the least consideration for them.
Scarlett is definitely not a nice person, but she has a sort of strength. She uses the weapons she has gotten to attain her goals.
As for sexist, she has got a sexist education, but the bossy part of her wants more power than the traditional sexist female role allows.

[hellsapoppin]

As for sexist, she has got a sexist education, but the bossy part of her wants more power than the traditional sexist female role allows.

It's difficult not to call her a sexist. After all her hatred for Captain Butler, she resolves to marry him in order to get his money. She does not give a single thought for his welfare, only for her own. She'll do anything for her selfish good. She even considers stealing Ashley from her vulnerable and ailing sister. This despite her Christian upbringing which forbids coveting thy neighbor's spouse or goods. In truth, there probably isn't a more wicked Jezebel in all of literature than she is. How can anyone deny that she is a self serving, selfish, wicked user of people (especially of men)? On top of all that she is a murderer!

One thing to bear in mind is that sexism is not a one way street. Women can be just as guilty of this as men:
https://www.quora.com/Is-sexism-just...-be-sexist-too

Perhaps all that should clear the air as to whether the term is appropriate for Scarlett.

[hellsapoppin]

Lest I forget, Scarlett is also a blatant racist:


How dared they laugh, the black apes! How dared they grin at her, Scarlett O'Hara of Tara! She'd like to have them all whipped until the blood ran down their backs. What devils the Yankees were to set them free, free to jeer at white people!


freedom “just ruined the darkies”

[hellsapoppin]

p 639 ~ Scarlett agreed ... "Free darkies are certainly worthless ... you can't depend on darkies anymore ... The more I see of emancipation the more criminal I think it is. It's just ruined the darkies."

So many racist comments by her all throughout the book. Shame, shame.

[bounty]

"Bottom line, if you want to excuse slavery or provide some from of rationale for the way it was practiced in the south, Locke is NOT the person whose teachings you want to invoke.

maybe i am unjustly mingling posts here, but I referenced locke directly in reference to scarlett killing the yankee soldier, completely independent of slavery.

"It's difficult not to call her a sexist. After all her hatred for Captain Butler, she resolves to marry him in order to get his money. She does not give a single thought for his welfare, only for her own. She'll do anything for her selfish good."

right, that makes her self-interested and maybe a gold-digger, not a sexist. youre describing her relationship with one individual, which is indicative of her dynamic of that one individual, not the entirety of men. and the question of traditional sex-roles is still in the mix.

"If you find anything wrong with my interpretation, show me where it is and I will gladly answer it. So far you have criticized, but you have not actually pointed to any deficiency in the subject."

a small for instance: you claim scarlett is a "professing Christian" and your evidence of that is her use of the phrase "as god is my witness." that is not the sine qua non of Christianity. its not even necessarily an acknowledgement of god's existence. even all the other literary references that include "god" in the text are not evidence of Christianity.

there isn't one place in the book where the main characters profess to be Christians.

I think the better way to approach the question is to ask, can I tell by anyone's words, thoughts and deeds that they are indeed Christian?

that said however, a Christian life characterized by "self-sacrifice, loving everyone, and turning the other cheek" is not negated by expecting soldiers to die for their country, or for that matter, going to war and killing the enemy.

"...and be at peace with all men." there is no real biblical admonition for that as you have written it.

you did similar things in the Dostoevsky conversation and another place or two. while I cannot recollect specific instances, I do recollect being left with the general impression.

"You will have an uphill battle the likes of which you've never imagined before."

you have no idea of my past intellectual battles so making such a statement isn't good reasoning. if you were making a jest and ive taken you too literally, I apologize, but either way, its not a conversation I want to continue.

[hellsapoppin]

That's ok with me. However, it is clear that you cannot see what is so obviously stated by the author. There are repeated uses of the term "by God", "my God" the Angel Gabriel, and many other Christian images all throughout the story. Clearly your lack of knowledge about the bible and Christianity is the reason why you fail to see these obvious reference.


Perhaps this might explain some of it for you:


https://www.franciscanmedia.org/st-a...oogle_vignette


All throughout the book Christianity is clearly VERY evident. I do not know how anyone can possibly miss the references made in that link. And there are so many more. While I do not quite agree with the conclusions reached in that link it does prove the point that there are innumerable biblical or Christian references in GWTW.

As for sexism, anyone who thinks the life of one woman is worth that of more than a hundred men is clearly sexist and delusional.

Re 'be at peace with all men' see Romans 12:18.

Your understanding of the book is falling way short of the author's clear intentions. You may want to re-read it in order to get a full appreciation and understanding of it.

[bounty]

its bad enough to be ignorant (for lack of a better word), its worse to be ignorant and confident in your ignorance, especially when you have been corrected so to speak, and its the worst to be ignorant, confident in the ignorance and condescending and insulting to boot.

congratulations, you have hit the trifecta.

[hellsapoppin]

You will need to back that up with substantive matter in order to earn any form of credibility in this regard, kiddo.