Be Firm, O’ Letter A
Be Firm, O’ Letter A
I have loved Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter for as long as I can remember – until now. I forgot that when I read it, I always skip the integral – but long-winded and dull – introduction. But read it I did for this class, and I found I was developing a passionate dislike of Hawthorne and his twenty-five-word sentences. Just don’t tell my English teacher.
Once I got beyond the beginning of the introduction, however, I felt my interest sharpening, and the old memories of Hester Prynne, Pearl, and the scarlet letter all together coming boldly out of prison made me ready to delve right back into the story.
But this time I did not read for pleasure. It was time to read seriously, to find meaning, and draw connections to the course documents. And yet, although I read with a mind toward the class, I found the book as engaging as ever. And perhaps because I’ve internalized much of the novel simply by repetitious reading, I found it easy to connect it to this week’s work in Major Problems in the History of American Sexuality.
First, what caught my eye in Peiss’ book this week was the Massachusetts Colony Laws. One of the laws stated that if a man were to “RAVISH any maid, or single woman” (71) he would face severe punishment — possibly death. When I first read that, I was pleased, glad that the colony at least protected women from rape, even if they did persecute just about everyone else for every other so-called deviancy.
But when I went back for a second reading (yes, I often do that for this class — otherwise I would be lost), I realized that the law protected only some women — maids (I believe that here the word means virgin, not someone who cleans houses), and single women (who may or may not be virgins). But what about married women? Are they not protected by the law?
This is especially troublesome if you consider that Hester Prynne was a married woman. What if she had been raped? And — even worse in a way — had a child? Would she have been given any protection from the law? I think not. It seems that women bear the brunt of responsibility for out-of-the-norm sexual liaisons. They are held responsible for the sexual activity (even if it was non-consensual), and for any children that come of it.
And I feel like nothing much has changed today. While Tiger Woods was vilified (and, oddly, felt the need to apologize to the public) for his infidelity, I found most public discussion of his assorted mistresses a bit heavy on the blame. It all seemed to portray the women as she-devils — women who held some sort of magical sway over him, who beguiled him, and used their evil feminine wiles to steal him from his wife. And maybe the women were flirty, or seductive, but Woods had a choice. He chose to cheat, sex addiction or not, and the women should not have to pay so dearly for his choices.
Neither should have Hester Prynne. Nor should any non-maiden/married woman in 17th century Massachusetts. Men make choices; so do women. But one gender should not be blamed disproportionately for the peccadillos of both. But I’m preaching to the choir here.
