Critical Feminist Studies

Originally, I saw Goblin Market as being about the dangers of “strange men,” but by looking at commonalities in the interpretations offered by other critics, I can see that Goblin Market lends itself to a wide range of interpretation.  The common thread seems to be that the goblins must represent something forbidden that young women could fall prey to (drugs, sex, food, consumerism…etc…).  The real point of importance to me is what all of these interpretations could say about women and sisterhood.  Regardless of what the temptation is, the roles given to women are both one who falls victim to temptation, and one who selflessly rescues a weaker victim.  On one hand, it seems very feminist to have a heroine who does not need the help of a man.  On the other hand, it seems that everyone who falls victim to temptation in the world of Goblin Market has been a woman, the only reference to past victims was also a woman and there is no significant mention of human men.  What would have happened in the poem if a father, brother, or other male figure was present?  While a female helping another female seems very feminist, a temptation that only corrupts women seems strange and could be promoting women as the “weaker sex.”  I am still not sure whether Christina Rossetti deserves a seat at the table – although she promotes independence and sisterhood, the sisterhood came at great expense and does not seem to exist in a broader world that includes men. 

After reading the Goblin Market, I felt like there were many ways to interpret the meaning of the story, but after coming to class I did not realize just how many ways you could see the story until Prof. Dalke was listing off the list of theories people have written in response to the Goblin Market. Whether Christina Rossetti intended the audience to read it in one way or another, it’s fascinating that there are people who see it in a more separate way than the tradition feminism idea (like the idea that Lizzie’s experience represents the ills of Consumerism).

For me, I felt the bond of the sisterhood represented the bond that all women should share with each other; not necessarily in a homoerotic way as some writers have responded to the Goblin Market, but in a way that all women should trust in other women and to stand together against men who will hurt us.

Feminism should necessarily be about how females are better than males or that females should be seen higher than males in society, but more the need for equality. Both men and women can hurt. Both men and women can love. There should not be a difference. It reminds me of a quote from a plaque my mom hung in our restroom back home.

“Woman was created from the rib of man.
She was not made from his head to be above him,
nor was she made from his feet to be trampled on.
She was created out of his side to equal him,
under his arm to be protected by him
and near his heart to be loved.”

This first week of class has given me a lot to think about, but I’ll start with my thoughts about the course in general. I think that as students at Bryn Mawr or Haverford we are expected to take responsibility for our learning, but I’d never really thought about taking responsibility for helping others learn as well. Framing the course as a potluck in this way resonated with me, and helped me to understand that we all see things in different ways. By using our different experiences with feminism and literature, we can help each other to see different sides of the text or issue we are considering. In addition, the style of evaluation is very new to me as well. There is a fair amount expected of us, but I think that withholding evaluation until the end of the course will help me to think of my work as a cumulative portfolio, and make connections that I may not have if every one of my papers were being graded individually.