Skip to main content

The Waltz

What do you do when a man asks you to dance? This is a metaphor for the larger societal control men exercise over women with their charm, wit, and greatness. We cannot refuse to dance. More specifically, I cannot refuse to eat.

The following is a piece I wrote earlier this year for a class on Gender and Language

2.7.05
Response to “The Waltz” (The New Yorker)


Dorothy Parker’s “The Waltz” is written in a stream of consciousness style that hints at the duplicitous role of women’s language. The narrator is a performer. Her oral speech contrasts with her inner thoughts. For example, when her unnamed dancing partner kicks her shin, she thinks, “For God’s sake, don’t kick, you idiot; this is only my second down”—a football reference, atypical of women’s speech. But out loud, she says, “Oh, no no, no. Goodness, no it didn’t hurt the least little bit. And it was my fault. Really it was. Truly. It really was all my fault.” Her verbal speech, however, is marked by Lakoffesque stereotypical mechanisms like qualifiers, intensifiers, empty adjectives. She overuses words like “lovely” and “really” and “Oh!” Her internal monologue is intense, biting, a series of overstatements and understatements: I am Outraged Womanhood. I’ll see you in hell first. The events of my life are passing before my eyes. There was the time I was in a hurricane in the West Indies, there was the day I got my head cut open in the taxi smash, there was that summer that the sailboat kept capsizing… Although her thoughts are rambling, illogical (stereotypical of women’s speech as well), this inner voice is unfeminine, brutish even. She is mercilessly honest and critical of her dancing partner but she maintains a façade of a happy, dancing woman. The discord between internal thought patterns and external verbal speech suggests that the narrator is indeed performing. She smiles when she wants to scream; she continues to dance when she wants to kill her partner. What can you say when a man asks you to dance with him? she poses as the central question of her piece. Apparently, one must superficially comply and then subversively critique in one’s head. She learns and performs femininity and its appropriate verbal speech but her personal, private thoughts need not comply with social regulations.

Comments

  1. Anonymous12/10/2005

    lol you could just say no...

    -roman

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sadia12/10/2005

    you cant just say no. its not that simple, genius. it is somehow more difficult to say no to a guy than to a girl. i cannot explain this adequately. its like pretending to be available when you're really not.

    most women have trouble saying no. this is a fact. according to oprah. and others, too.

    sadia

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Not Friendship (Revised)- Repost

It is difficult to be merely a friend to a boy who seems more suitable as a husband than a friend. To reduce a potential life partner to a friend is immature and selfish. Friendship is the not the greatest type of relationship, but it is the safest. Friendship allows you to be intimate without the messiness of other things, like physical attraction, etc. Between friends, there is a warm permanence, a fuzziness that can be called appreciation and gratitude. There is also comfort and trust. Friendship is great if only for the possibility that one can know the beauty of another human being. The possibility of that is worth the difficulty of all else. But sometimes friendship is not enough. Sometimes, to reduce someone to friend when he should be much more is an affront to the opportunity God has presented before you. It is like saying to him, I know that we are amazing together, but we should be friends because I am a dumbass. To reduce him to friend also precludes the possibility of love...
7 comments
Read more

Protection of the Heart

"The pages of the book are like the heart. They turn easily." This is what Irfana told our beginner's Arabic class today. I spent some time with her after class, sharing with her the vague details of my life. She told me, "Sadia you have to protect your heart." Protection of the heart can mean many things. For instance, you should avoid foods that are high in saturated fat. This is common-sense protection of the heart. Then, there is the more significant kind of protection, one in which you avoid engaging in affairs that are potentially harmful for you. I have tried to advocate for platonic relationships long enough (three unsuccessful years), and I will state unequivocally now, THEY DO NOT EXIST. Alhamdullilah. (Rayad you win.) Best practices suggest that being close to a guy--any guy who isn't gay or isn't already married/taken-- means there will be emotional hangups. This principle of protection demands that you anticipate the normal patterns of human...
5 comments
Read more

Re: Your Inquiries

"You confuse yourselves with your actions, even with your thoughts. You barely understand that in order to be, it should not be necessary to act, and that the world changes you far more than you change it." (Malraux, The Temptation of the West, 1961 ) The world consists of wonderful people who enter and exit your life. When you let them enter, your breaths seem more thoughtful, your behaviors more scrutinized, your ideas challenged, and sometimes your brain orgasms from happiness. But when these individuals leave, you experience equally significant things like confusion and hurt. It seems okay to let someone in, someone trustworthy, good, honest, and not concern yourself with the end. As things exist in your mind, there is no harm. Intellectual promiscuity, then, is not so bad. To have intimate, intelligent conversations into the morning is not troubling, either. Sometimes when good people enter, it is not necessary to act, or specifically to resist. When people enter, their ...
6 comments
Read more