The Irresistible Siren And The Woman Question

The Irresistible Siren and The Woman Question

 According to the OED, a “Salvationist” is a person “with capital initial. A member of the Salvation Army”, and/or “one who rescues from peril; a savior”.  This is a very heroic and noble definition, which would place the woman into this army. Nevertheless, Brother Jack claimed “salvationists” were “wealthy members who sought political salvation by contributing financially to the brotherhood”(Ellison 410). Therefore, if they have to buy their own safety, then they are neither a savior nor being saved. They are just a consumer of self-interests using their “capital initial” to avoid peril, not rescue someone or something from it. The woman who seduces the IM is a “salvationist" in a sense that she will buy out anything she has to buy to get her way, either using her sensuality or her money. This poses the question: Is she trying to sexually buy out the IM to get some valuable information and set him a trap, or is she just a capricious, lonely wife seeking to satisfy her carnal needs? In a cultural and historical approach to this particular scene, the article by Erika L. Doss “Images of American Women in the 1930s: Reginald Marsh and "Paramount Picture"”, depicts the different constructions of women, the woman glorified and enshrined in the movie screen, enormously contrasted with the working class woman. For the purpose of the book and the image of this particular woman, focus will be drawn on the glamorous movie symbols. The woman who is seducing the IM is a portrait of 1930’s Hollywood sex goddesses such as Jean Harlow and Mae West, known for their unconventionally open sensuality, defying all social standards and rules and embodying the Woman Question. They were portrayed as the ones who, “Tempted men with their beauty and sexuality. Dressed in silks and satins, moving gracefully but provocatively, whispering and chattering in low-keyed, coy dialogue…”(Doss 2). If the woman who is seducing IM whose “train of her gown trails sensuously over the oriental carpet” is an image of the glamorous, deviant women in the movies, then she has no cruel intentions with the IM (Ellison 412). She exudes sexual desire all along the scene, and it is evident in her dialogue and body language. At one point in her seduction she says to the IM, “Brotherhood, darling,” she said, gripping my biceps with her little hands. “Teach me, talk to me. Teach me the beautiful ideology of Brotherhood”(Ellison 415). The dialogue aspect Doss refers to in her article as one of the weapons women implemented in seduction are clearly used by this white, upper class woman. The imagery offered is that of the woman using a seductive voice, and irresistible body language. Conversely, Doss also points out how this sexuality of glamour and rebellion was also presented as “both cunning and destructive”(Doss 2). This sense of destruction is also present in the scene. She is neither interested in learning more about the party, nor is she part of a bigger conspiracy to test the IM’s character, but she is destructive in an implicit way that she may or may not be aware of. She has destroyed the consciousness of the IM. He will now indulge himself in paranoia once again, looking over his shoulder, and painfully waiting for the time he is punished for falling into temptation. She enounces the words IM wants to hear, engaging in an eloquent version of “dirty talk”. She exclaims, “I wish to embrace the whole of it. Life is so terribly empty and disorganized without it. I sincerely believe that only Brotherhood offers any hope of making life worth living again”(Ellison 412). Her words attribute her qualities of a hypocrite considering the fact that she, personally, has no organization in her life whatsoever. She is basically living in a fake, unstable marriage already leading a life that she seems to be content with, having multiple, unattached partners to fulfill her carnal desires. Her tone is that of a suspicious reassurance. Using the word “sincerely”, it seems to be that she is overstating a belief to cover up the fact that she doesn’t really think that way. She just wants to allure the IM in. She is a woman that will genuinely talk and seduce her way into getting what she wants, not what others want.

            When a man finds his woman with a lover in his own bed, the typical response is that of wrath and revenge that can often lead to murder of the betraying parties. Nevertheless, in IM, the reader experiences a particularly blank and indifferent reaction. As the woman’s husband walks in on her and the IM, “his face is expressionless”(417). The scene is carried out in a very natural way, and the husband seems to be completely unaffected by the sight. He marches off and even says, “Night, and you too”(Ellison 417). Here, he is addressing both his wife and the IM. This surreal scene of pardon and unresponsiveness suggests that they are another broken marriage staying together to pretend for the upper class public. They have gone their separate, lustful ways, but live under the same roof to avoid the infamous: What will they say? He sees the Invisible Man, he surely does. Any man would see the man who is usurping his place in bed. The husband has become blind to the sights, immune to the discomfort, accustomed to this sinful way of life, and protective of his appearance in a rich and condemning social circle.

Questions

Is this woman the embodiment of the Woman Question, or is she just part of the answer?

What is your personal stance on this? Do you think she is part of a larger conspiracy to test the IM?

What do you think is the function of this reverse response from the husband? What is Ellison trying to get across with this?

These odd and surreal behaviors, as the one mentioned in the previous questions, are constant throughout the book. Do you think all of them are trying to convey the same message? What do you think that message is, or perhaps messages? 

Works Cited

Doss, Erika L. "Images of American Women in the 1930s: Reginald Marsh and
     'Paramount Picture.'" Women's Art Journal 4.2 (1983-1984): 1-4. JSTOR. Web.
     2 Apr. 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357937?seq=2>