We kind of touched on it the other day in class, that Gloria and the protagonist have to be much more tough than the men that surround them. They have to go above and beyond in order to prove themselves. I definitely understood why Gloria acted the way she did and was the way she was. For example, when she kills Vic and the men come in to clean up they are shocked. The narrator mentions that the look on Gloria's face is one of satisfaction. I felt like this was the ultimate example of Gloria trying to be bigger and better than the boys because she was so proud that these men who have seen it all, couldn't believe what they walked into, and that a woman did it.
I also have to say I really liked Gloria. I know that she is a criminal and yada yada yada but in the context of the novel, she was pretty badass. Even in the ending, when she realizes what's going on, she's so calm about it and then just slits her throat. \m/
Lastly, I couldn't help but feel that the narrator took Gloria down too soon. I guess it was circumstantial but I kind of felt like she wasn't really ready for the crime world on her own. Up until the end, she was still making mistakes. I think she handled herself with the cops/Regina pretty well but she didn't realize that Vic had pulled one over on her until Gloria lays it out. Maybe the intuition that Gloria has will come with time and experience.
"Gloria and the protagonist have to be much more tough than the men that surround them" - I disagree. In fact, In the world of organized crime, what Gloria and the narrator do is scut work. They, from what I recall, pick up payments and ferry drugs around.
ReplyDeleteCompare this to their male (I think the narrator refers to them as "hard boys") counterparts, who are responsible for serious stuff like dealing with Vic's body and are just generally implied to be Mackey's main agents of violence.
If anything, I think that these two female characters have it easier than the men-- the primary example of this would be the ways in which the narrator deals with cops. In her first run-in with a detective, the narrator uses "feminine problems" as an alibi. Also, Gloria instructs the narrator to tell any cops who stop her while driving that she is going to visit her pregnant sister or something like that. These are both ways in which the narrator is able to use her femininity as an ironclad get-out-of-jail-free card, something that none of the "hard boys" could never do.
But I think Gloria specifically, when she does act out violently does it much more intensely then the men do, to prove that in a situation where it's necessary she can go hard.
ReplyDeleteAlso I don't think using their femininity to their advantage makes them less tough. They're using what they can in a world that is pretty much dominated by men. How many gangster movies do you see with women leading the way? Also, just because they are running payments and what not does not mean they aren't in a dangerous line of work. Beyond that, Gloria has connections beyond what normal payment runners would have. She is running all over the country and meeting with serious bosses, so I think her status is a little beyond that. She wouldn't be able to meet and sway Mackey if she wasn't. It's understandable that the narrator isn't doing anything too crazy yet, she's new to the game.
"Gloria specifically, when she does act out violently does it much more intensely then the men do, to prove that in a situation where it's necessary she can go hard" -- when Gloria acted out violently she did so in a crazed and hysterical manner. Where a "hard boy" would have simply shot Vic, Gloria was inefficient and put both herself and the narrator at risk, which I view as incompetence.
Delete"Also I don't think using their femininity to their advantage makes them less tough" -- using there femininity to their advantage = their job is easier than the men's b/c they have advantages that the men don't have (eg using "feminine problems" as an alibi). The point is that men are inherently under more suspicion in matters of organized crime then women (b/c men commit more of these crimes than women), making their jobs more difficult. Hence, my contention that the men have to be tougher.
"How many gangster movies do you see with women leading the way?" -- not sure how this applies to toughness
"Also, just because they are running payments and what not does not mean they aren't in a dangerous line of work" -- really? Nobody gets the death penalty (life w/ no parole, etc) for being a drug mule or picking up payments. Her line of work is objectively less difficult than that of the "hard boys."
The point of all of this is simply that what Gloria and the narrator do, in terms of their day to day jobs is not the sort of dramatic stuff that you'd see on the Sopranos or whatever. And, the one time that they do commit a violent crime, it turns out to be more of a crime of passion. For this reason, I'm not convinced that they are any tougher than your average low-level criminal. If they had killed Mackey or something as well then ok, but two-on-one stabbing a drunk guy doesn't come off as that "tough."
As a counterargument, one could claim that men in general have more of a natural advantage in the crime world since they are (generally speaking here) physically stronger than most women, so women in crime circles would feel more compelled to use their "feminine wiles" to counteract this disadvantage. Most women in crime novels are not physically intimidating to the males so perhaps authors feel that they must make their female characters use other forms of manipulation outside of straight-up physical suppressive force to have the same degree of power as men do. I'm not sure if the women have to be tougher than the men or vice versa, but it seems pretty clear that they have to be tough in different ways for different reasons. Also, in the little I know about "thug culture," thugs claim that anyone can shoot someone else with a gun, but you have to be real tough, cold blooded bastard to stab someone. Of course, a "two-on-one stabbing of a drunk guy" may not readily apply to that notion. Also, I have been pondering what it means that most real life female criminals usually do go to prison or murder for crimes of passion or for killing someone they know pretty well. I think this might relate to Gilligan's claim that women are not honored, respected, or become more intimidating if they commit a violent crime like men do(I'm thinking of how men are honored for killing other men in war or in gangs). It seems that women in literature and real life need a personal reason to kill (thus crime of passion against an intimate figure) more than men (considering that low level thugs kill on the behalf of their bosses or soldiers kill behalf of the leader of their nation) because women do not garner the same benefits as men for committing violence. The only thing that a woman may benefit from, as Zack pointed out, is that she will not be the first suspect of the crime because violence from females is such an anomaly. However, if a woman does leave any evidence directly linking her to the crime and does have a criminal past she is probably more screwed since there are less female criminals overall and she would be more easily found due to probability.
DeleteYeah, I really liked Gloria, but I did not like the narrator. She was so weak and easily persuaded that it made me angry reading about how easy she was. Like we said in class, she seems to resent Gloria for ways that aren't all that clear. She seems to want to be bigger and better than Gloria after Gloria made her who she became. This is a typical plot element in a lot of stories, but I thought something would happen to the narrator and not Gloria in the end.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think the narrator was definitely very easily-manipulated and I think that contributed to Gloria's murder. That she was so entrenched in the idea of the crime world, that she had to be 'tough' and lacked the sense of strategy Gloria had that she thought acting within the realm would be better for her, but, really, no results came from it. In a way, it's sort of a staple of noir for senseless violence to occur, but that's kind of the point, right? To increase intrigue and outlandish-ness.
DeleteI would love to continue to argue but I have cramps...
ReplyDeleteThese women are definitely tough, there's no denying. I wouldn't, however, say they have to be more tougher than the men around them, I just think they have to be tough enough, which does require effort. Simply judging by societal norms, men are seen as tougher than woman. Men do the dirty work, so forth and so on. I personally think thats a load of crap because I've certainly seen my fair share of woman who can whoop my ass. But that is the belief. That being said, I think the woman in this novel need to push their own limits of toughness to be on the same playing field as men. It it much easier for men to be "tough," so therefore women have to push themselves to get on the same level of toughness. Does that make sense?
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you are saying. Women are typically seen as being easier targets for crime and victimization than men are (even though I'm pretty sure there are more men overall who are victims of violent crimes, even though I could be completely wrong since there are more women who are victims of sexual crimes, which in my opinion, are violent crimes of force), so if they are seen as tough as men (at least in the crime world), then they probably had to go through a lot of crap to get there and work harder to prove themselves to be taken seriously.
Delete