women after women.

Jocelyn Lemus

A rising theme that I’ve encountered in all my blog posts is the way women are perceived. As I’ve mentioned before, Lady Mary Montagu and Lord Byron have generated this initial argument of women being objectified by the way they live and the way they are seen from a male’s perspective. To elaborate more, another perspective that I’ve noticed in my blog posts is The Travels of Mirza Taleb Khan. He helps me elaborate more on the way women are portrayed through his erotic desires for European women. For instance, when he compared them to European Dutch women, he emphasizes, “All the European Dutch Women whom I saw, were very fat, gross, and insipid; but the girls born at the Cape are all made, handsome and sprightly” (84). This is important because not only is Khan depicting “erotic” women as physically attractive, but he is also belittling Dutch women that do not fulfill the compartments of his type of beauty. He is neglecting these women, while he is praising another group of women. Khan is grasping onto the image of women and categorizing them from beautiful to ugly. Furthermore, Khan elaborates how the status of women is glorified through their appearances and nothing more. Khan indicates in his travels, “the English legislators and philosophers have wisely determined that the best mode of keeping women out of the way of temptation and their minds from wandering after improper desires is by giving them sufficient employment” (173). Women in Khan’s eyes are nothing but muses used to entertain men. He is sexualizing women as a distraction because they provoked a man’s erotic desires. They are led on into something less important. To him, sexual pleasure has become a business to women, meaning that women are nothing more than sexual desires. 

Abu Taleb Khan is depicting the image of a woman, placing it on a pedestal, and calling it the male gaze. In The Travels of Mirza Abu Taleb Khan, where he also emphasizes a critical opinion on the way women should be treated. He chooses to indicate the presence of a woman as “require costly presents” (84). This is important because it connects to how he sexualizes women as erotic desires because he is grasping into the idea that women are only objects that only acquire sexual attention. They are not given a voice to speak for themselves, especially since they are held upon their husband’s commands. “They are upon no account allowed to walk out after dark; and they never think of sleeping abroad, even at the house of their father or mother, unless the husband is with them” (173). Without the presence of their husbands, they are nothing. Women are converted into specs of dust, searching for a place to land and calling “home.” Women are treated as if they were weak and fragile as if a life without men is a life without meaning and definition. Women are not allowed to do much, they are treated like cats and dogs. As Khan mentions, a “man may beat his wife with a stick” (173). How is it even possible for a man to do that to a woman? As if their life is less than a male’s. Khan is demeaning the word “women” and replaces the word with objects, desires, distractions, and even more. This demonstrates how Khan is incapable of setting aside his masculine perspective toward the image of a woman.

Abu Taleb Khan and His Women

For next Thursday (4/14), students will answer the following question prompt:

What does Abu Taleb Khan’s erotic desire for European women reveal about British imperial culture?

Focus on a close reading of ONE key passage or scene from Abu Taleb’s travel account.  Please categorize under “Sex and the City” and don’t forget to create interesting and specific tags. And please write your full name. The blog post is due by Thursday (4/14) 8:30am.

To help you with this post, here are 5 close reading guidelines you should follow:

1. Note key words or phrases that repeat in that passage.

2. Look for irony, paradox, ambiguity, and tension.

3. Note those words or phrases that seem odd or out-of-place.

4. Note any important symbols, motifs, and themes.

5.  Is there anything missing from the text that should be there?

Sex and the City!

I thought it was a little hard to find a passage thta will correlat to this particular topic and that will also be a bit easier to picture not just for myself but for people. I think women have always been utilize as an object and as I was readin the second paragraph from page 215, Abu seem to recognize this topic too.

Abu Taleb Khan has a strong feeling the British, so he criticizes the culture along with its imperialism.  Mos of his critics is addressing to British women, which he portraits as an object for men. He thinks women play a significant role when it comes to imperialism. Women can play the role of being a luxury for people. He hiddenly explains how women are an object that makes men more appealing or more powerful to society in a way. Abu defines to women as ‘courtezans,’ which he identifies as the women who every famous or renown man want as an escort. Abu not only sees these women as a luxury for their body but because of the high price for their services. 

Abu, expresses his opinion about chastity being a recurrent vice for the nation as a whole. He thinks women should save themselves for marriage if were not to do so they ruin their life. He starts talking abput the “public houses” (215) in London and about the “great degree of licentiousness practised by numbers of both sexes” (215). Abu suggestes by these how men are men and that they have no code, rules or any type of expectations but thinks women are ruining their lives. He also cant stop seeing the irony behind the name of the places where prostitutes conduct their business for example “‘Paradise Street,’ ‘Modest Court,’ ‘St. James Street,’ ‘St. Martin’s Lane,’ and ‘St. Paul’s Churchyard’” (215). Abu does not considere a prudent thing to do to name public houses or streets where this houses where located with a religious name. 

 

 

How a Dinner reveals Cultural Perception

In Chapter 6 of his narrative, Abu Taleb describes his visit to the house of Captain Baker, one of the ranking members of the EIC. While detailing his visit to Captain Baker’s house, Abu Taleb notes that:

This gentleman’s family consisted, in all, of twelve persons, two of whom were his nieces. One of these ladies was witty and agreeable; the other handsome, but reserved. Several of the young men of Cork had made them offers of marriage; but they were so impressed with their own powerful attractions, that they were difficult to please, and would not yield their liberty to any of their admirers. These ladies, during dinner, honoured me with the most marked attention; and as I had never before experienced so much courtesy from beauties, I was lost in admiration. After dinner these angels made tea for us; and one of them having asked me if it was sweet enough, I replied, that, having been made by such hands, it could not be but sweet. On hearing this, all the company laughed, and my fair one blushed like a rose of Damascus. (The Travels of Mirza Abu Taleb Khan, 98)

While this may appear to be just a simple description of an interesting night with company, this passage illustrates how the EIC made their way into, and conquered India. First, we must discuss how Abu Taleb describes the heiresses of Captain Baker. The description given by Abu Taleb to each one indicates a view of the English. Some are “witty and agreeable,” the others “handsome, but reserved.” Next, Abu Taleb recounts the history of these women. He mentions how they were approached with offers of marriage, but, because they loved their own qualities, they were reluctant to make a deal that would “yield their liberty.” This is allegorical to how the British are not seeking allies at this time, but rather are looking for land to colonize. By doing so, they are increasing their power and wealth but not giving up any of their freedoms to do so.

The description of the actual dinner also serves to further this allegory. Abu Taleb is “honoured [] with the most marked attention” by these women. This symbolizes how the Indians felt when they were suddenly taken notice of by the Empire of the British. The Indians much enjoyed this attention, as “[they] had never before experienced so much courtesy from beauties.” The scene immediately after this is also a continuation of this reaction from the Indians. Abu Taleb’s compliment to the woman signifies how his culture not only does not have hostility towards these people, but in fact still see them as beautiful allies. Everyone at the dinner party enjoys hearing the niece complimented by Abu Taleb, and by giving the compliment Abu Taleb voices his acceptance of his people being “conquered” by English society.

Abu Taleb and British Women

In chapter 9 of his narrative, Abu Taleb Khan heavily criticizes British imperialism and culture. One area of criticism in particular is directed at British women. In a section of chapter 9, Abu Taleb addresses the “courtezans” in London (215). A courtesan is defined as a high-class escort. When it comes to prostitutes, courtesans are at the top of the food chain, often living in luxury and charging high prices for their services. Therefore, as with everything else in Britain as Abu Taleb describes it, even the prostitutes are over the top and examples of the imperialist British focus on prestige and secularism. He also explains the irony of where the prostitutes are located within the city of London; he states that the streets on which the prostitutes conduct their business “ought only to be the abode of virtue and religion; for instance, ‘Paradise Street,’ ‘Modest Court,’ ‘St. James Street,’ ‘St. Martin’s Lane,’ and ‘St. Paul’s Churchyard’” (215). He therefore uses these British women and their ironic juxtaposition with religious or virtuous street names, along with his other criticisms of British culture in this chapter, such as their lack of religion and materialistic nature, to paint a hypocritical and amoral picture of British imperialist society. His attraction to British women, therefore, paints British imperial culture as something insidious to Abu Taleb. He, being a morally conservative Muslim observing what he considers to be immoral practices of British culture, sees women as an element of said culture which could tempt him into sin. In other words, his erotic desire for these women reveal that British imperialist culture, in Taleb’s opinion, is corrupting and a danger to Eastern society and Muslim morality.

Women and gender role

Lady Mary and Lord Byron have a poetic way to express their points of view about women and their roles.  They both see how women lived in the shadow of their husbands, they role was to be obedient and subservient to men. A lack of civil rights has always been an issue for women even more in the Hellenistic time, and even Joseph Pitt with his concept of orientalism will give barely or nonimportance to women. He sees women lack of involvement in society as a negative recognition for women. Lady Mary, in her letter, will focus and will give more importance to the upper-class women. Lady mary is a vivid representation of how women have a place and feeling trap in a marriage without being able to do anything for herself that will make her happy but has the desire to escape from this situation. But, at the same time she judges and discriminates women from a mixed race without acknowledging it, because to her eyes mixing races is just wrong. It is interesting how she doesn’t really com to the realization that they are women as well who might be needing an escape from their lives and husbands just like her. It is important to mention how she writes the letter to her friend about the Turkish bathhouse and explains her fascination with the women body. She provides an explanation of the beauty of the Hellenic time represented by the bathhouse structure, and the division what seems the division of social classes, by this meaning the slaves and the attendees.

In contrast,  Lord Byron, in his poem the Giaour, the portraits women as an object, and uses his Leila into an object of beauty but not recognizes her as a human being. A third narrator portraits her as “Bright as the jewel of giamschid, yea, soul,…” (479-480). They know and recognize her as a human being with a soul. He presents her as a but toy of a, a soulless toy for tyrant’s lust, even though he has already acknowledged her as a gorgeous woman with a mind. Again, we see how he sees women as a toy that can be used and left behind when he feels like it is appropriate. She is being underpowered just like any other women during this time. To conclude is important to notice how women are underpowered  and judge not only in real time but are also is being used as inspiration for poetic art.

Proofs of Nobility in Fertility

“Lady Mary’s Obsession with Power” by blog user hpga26 explores the concepts of power and gender which does in fact respond to the question posed about Lady Montagu and why she admires female sexuality and reproduction for Muslim women. The idea that seemed particularly important and debatable in terms of originality, is how the topic ties into Orientalism through the othering Lady Montagu commits by elevating the “descriptions of the reproductive habits and sexuality of the Muslim women.” I find it debatable in originality because of the summation of ideas which broadly link back to the argument of Orientalism that is so closely tied with western interpretations and understandings of Muslim/Islamic culture. Regardless of the tentative originality of the ideas, I understand the concepts of hegemony and discourse which bleed heavily into the fascination which the author discusses as a major factor for Lady Montagu’s admiration and elevation of Muslim women. However, I disagree with the sentiments that Lady Montagu admires Muslim women for the power they wield through their “sexuality and their sex” particularly because the author implies that Lady Montagu does not see Muslims women’s “roles as mothers as a limiting role.” Though the power Muslim women wield through sexuality and sex (gender) can be supplicated by the passage in letter 39 “all the women of my acquaintance that have been married ten years have twelve or thirteen children, and the old ones boast of having had five and twenty or thirty apiece…are respected by the number they produce” (152) I also find their role as mothers limiting. The passage “in this country ‘tis more despicable to be married and not fruitful than ‘tis with us to be fruitful before marriage” (151) illustrates the complicated nature of the idea presented by the author that Lady Mary admires the lack of limitations Muslim women. From my own understanding I see Lady Mary’s admiration for Muslim women stemming from a potential flexibility in how they wield their sexuality both by submitting to the need to bare children and using it as a means to illustrate “proofs of their youth… as it is to show the proofs of nobility” (151).

The Ecstasy of Motherhood

Lady Mary displays a pointed admiration of norms regarding female sexuality and reproduction in the Ottoman  Empire. In several instances, she compares and contrasts Muslim religious and cultural attitudes towards female sexuality with those of English Christians. Lady Mary notes the Muslim attitude towards procreation, which asserts that women are put on earth primarily to “increase and multiply” (144). The more children a woman has, the higher she is held in regard. As Lady Mary notes, the concept of the holy virgin, the idea that a woman who abstains from sex is somehow closer to God, is a uniquely Christian phenomenon that would be an anathema to Muslims. Lady Mary, sly as ever, refuses to openly express her preference for Islamic doctrine, demurring, “which divinity is most rational, I leave you to determine” (144). However this in itself may be read as a preference for the Muslim persuasion. In another letter, Lady Mary rhetorically query’s a Venetian nobleman, “What will become of your Saint Catherine…. the whole Bread-roll of your holy Virgins and Widows.” Lady Mary uses language to separate herself from the those who exalt the holy virgin, pointedly choosing to use the possessive pronoun “your” instead of “our.”

Lady Mary is herself pregnant, and although worried, she notes she is comforted by “the glory that accrues to me from it, and a reflection on the contempt I should otherwise fall under (151). Lady Mary is particularly enamored of “the exemption they seem to enjoy from the curse entailed on the sex,” (152). Is Lady Mary’s exalting of Muslim women’s “wonderful” (152) ability to avoid the complications and pain of childbirth, as well as the shame surrounding conception and labor, a sly reference, and y extension, endorsement, of the Islamic rejection of Original Sin? What is clear is that Lady Mary deems the Muslim attitude towards women’s sexuality healthier than the that of the English, as Muslims do not, in her estimation, as the English do, consider female sexuality shameful.