In “Two Friends” by Freeman we get what appears to
be a homosexual relationship. I would argue that the two women are
coded as the opposite gender. Abby in the story is coded as a man, the husband,
“Abby did the rough work, the man’s work of the establishment” (214) and Sarah
is coded as the woman, the dutiful wife, “Sarah with her little slim, nervous
frame, the woman’s work” (214) From there it goes on to talk about Sarah making
dresses and dinner and looking after Abby. Abby however does all the outdoors
work and manages the money. The relationship is obviously meant to be more than
strictly platonic when we learn that Sarah has kept a secret from Abby that
kept her from ever getting married because Sarah, “I couldn’t have her likin’
anybody else an’ gittin’ married.” (415). The question I have is why did
Freeman code this relationship as a man and woman? Was this a way of making the
heteronormative masses more aware of what was going on? Was it a way of showing
people that a homosexual couple could be the same as a heterosexual couple? I’m
not sure what to think of it.
I believe during this time people were not as aware of homosexual relationships and associated them to heterosexual relationships because that is what they knew. However, we can still see these same stereotypes in society today. I find that we always need "someone to wear the pants" in a relationship regardless of sexuality.
ReplyDeleteAlex, I love what you point out about "Two Friends." I feel that Freeman may have depicted these two in a heterosexual way, so that individuals during her time period would be aware, that despite the title, Abby and Sarah were more than just friends. I feel if these two had both been portrayed as stereotypical woman, it would have been easier for the masses to pass them off as two old spinsters who just never got married and didn't want to be alone. However, I wish that she hadn't done this. I wish that society didn't always need "'someone to wear the pants' in a relationship," as Danielle said.
ReplyDeleteAs we have mentioned it today, Alex, I agree with you completely. I feel that these two women play off of each other on the aspect of gender roles. I feel that sex does not need to be an aspect within a queer reading. They both offer masculine and feminine qualities, somewhat fulfilling the requirements of the household. I feel that these roles satisfy these ladies and that is okay with them both.
ReplyDeleteI mentioned this at the very end of class, but perhaps Freeman wants us to think about *why* these roles/behaviors are coded to specific genders? Why is strength "male" and domesticity "female"? (They aren't inherently, right?)
ReplyDelete