Brazen Housewife

I personally enjoyed reading David Finkel's "The Last Housewife in America." I thought it was interesting how the main character, JoAnn, was first portrayed as the stereotypical housewife, but as the story progressed, we found out that she had more depth. I couldn't help but think of the Stepford Wives or Pleasantville when I first read about JoAnn: "There is a smile on her face, and soon she begins to whistle" (62). It almost seemed surreal to me, and I was immediately reminded of the stereotypical 1950's nuclear family when first reading about JoAnn, her husband, and their two sons. I was surprised that there was no mention of a nice, big golden retriever anywhere. But yeah, we'll discuss all that in class tomorrow! Meanwhile, here are some questions to think about:

1. Do you think Finkel is able to put JoAnn past the stereotype of a
housewife? As the narrative progresses, does your opinion change of JoAnn?
2. Do you think the reader is able to relate to JoAnn at all? How does
Finkel portray her?
3. Is the language used satiric at all, or completely sincere?
4. There are numerous digressions throughout this piece. What do you
think Finkel strives to do by constantly digressing from JoAnn's narrative?
5. What are your views on the ending? Do you think Finkel once again
shows JoAnn as a part of the stereotype?
6. Finally, do you think JoAnn is at all similar to Bonnie of "TV
Without Guilt?" If so, what characteristics do they share?

Comments

[Charla Batey]

Overall I enjoyed reading this piece. The topic however was boring to me. I have seen it in various formats so much that while I was reading I felt like I knew exactly what he was going to say next. I think that Finkle is not very effective at putting JoAnn past the stereotype of a housewife. He tries to put in points that are meant to do this but they don't really make me believe. For example when JoAnn reacts to the news about her friend's marriage ending and is driving home, "Then she gets into her car, heads toward the highway, and begins to cry, not only for her friend but also for more general reasons, for the way so many lives work out". I think that Finkle tries to make us see that JoAnn is capable of thought outside of laudry and dinner at 6, but I'm just not convinced. I'm not saying that she isn't a caring person or a dumb person, but from what I read, she is definately the embodiement of this stereotype. I agree with JoAnn when she says, "Who's to day who's right?". I don't think that anyone can provide 100% proof that one lifestyle is better than another. So I guess I don't see why Finkle would even feel the need to move her away from this stereotype. It's out there, a lot of the time is very accurate, and it's what she is. I would have just left it at that.

[Audrey Au]

To me it seems that Finkle may try to portray both points about a housewife. JoAnn IS the epitome of the ultimate housewife who's sole job is to cook, clean, tend to kids, rinse and repeat. However, Finkle does go into some depth to get Joann's view in order to express the other side of the story and how JoAnn views her outlook on women who have jobs in the workforce. I think that we can see the stereotypical housewife and how she may be living in some kind of ancient tradition once practiced back in the day but also that it we should not also look down on her for desiring to be soley a housewife. I think that this article was alright. There wasn't really any suspense or some epiphany that left me in awe but nonetheless it was good.

[Mallory Matney]

I personally didn't enjoy this piece as much as the "TV Without Guilt" piece. JoAnn's perspective did not change my perception of a housewife (after all, it is no longer the 50's, and the only reason a person-man or woman-would stay at home and not work is by choice because they could afford it). If anything, it affirmed the stereotype, though not for lack of trying from Finkel. I didn't feel I could connect to JoAnn. Perhaps it is the way I was raised: that women fought so that I have the right to choose what I do, and I always assumed it was to work. I felt that Finkel put too much sympathy on JoAnn, which made me less interested, as opposed to Bonnie from the other article, who was so ridiculous that my eyes never left the page (I use this cliche to prove a point). There was no suspense. JoAnn was so irritatingly calm, it reminded me of my grandmother. I think he meant to be sincere, and break a stereotype, and though he meant to reach out for the reader's sympathy, he failed in doing so for me.

[Jamie Bodie]

It's funny, in a way I'm in awe of Joanne. In the respect that she is simple and content within that simplicity. Her life is A then B, and the enevitable result is C. She wanted to get married, have kids, and stay at home to be a house wife. For me, there just seems too much to experience in a lifetime to be content within such a confined structure. I think it's fine if a woman wants to stay home after they have kids, but I disagree that it's the best thing for them and the family, as Finkle seems to imply. I just can't get into the idea that the whole point to one's life is to procreate and raise other suburban procreaters. Yes, it is very important that you give your child love, attention and self esteem. That goal can be achieved in many different ways. Another big responsiblity as a parent is to teach your kids about life. To me, Joanne isn't living, and neither is her husband. With a mom constantly tending to the mundane details of keeping a spotless home and a dad who is a little too over enthusiastic about being a corporate mouth piece- i wonder what kind of exposure to real life those kids are going to get. I just don't understand this level of superficiallity. Finkle showed very little interaction with the kids- the only instance that stands out is when Joanne ignored them when she was being interviewed. Which, to me, would be the indicator of a successful decision on her part. From what Finkle presented, there wasn't a lot of depth within these characters. I have a different perspective on what is important in life- experiencing it. Just because you become a mother doesn't mean the best thing to do next is to become one dimensional. In the respect that the kids are getting no exposure to real life Joanne and the t.v. mom are the same.

[Zach Sire]

I fell in love with Joanne pretty quickly. Or maybe I fell in love with the idea of her. She's just another victim of culture/society and Finkle makes this case well, pointing out solidly that she never assumes one mother's decision is right and another's is wrong. She just does what she knows. But like Jamie says above, there is no guarantee this will harvest future well adjusted adults. I think Joanne realizes this as well. I loved her content-ness and how Finkle really showed how happy she was from the tone of her voice to the longing she had for her family. She's also humanized and feels the pain of her friend and recognizes this could happen at anytime to anyone.

More than anything else though, I got a lot from this in terms of Finkle's reporting. Specifically, the kind of questions one must ask. He at some point asked her what she thought about while falling asleep at night. How did he find out about the chalk outline? There were so many obscure yet effective and pertinent details that had to have been the result of asking such intelligent and thought provoking questions. This is a good lesson to us now as we begin writing and interviewing our subjects.

[Sally Cho]

This is the second time that I have posted something on here and its not here. hUSDHduhdksh okay.. i will try to remember what I wrote about this one. I felt that Finkle was trying to hard to make us like/respect JoAnn as more than just a housewife. For me it was one of those things where the more you try to prove something isn't what you expect, it in exchange becomes exactly what you expected from the beginning. I agree that at times it reminded me of that movie Stepford Wives. The surreal, eerie perfection that just doesn't seem wholesomely right. I didn't hate reading the piece but I can't say that I thoroughly enjoyed its content. I think some readers can appreciate Finkle's style of writing, me on the other hand would much rather stick to Susan Orlean :)

[Audrey Au]

After coming back from class, I freakin' felt bugged by the fact that this was written for the Esquire magazine. The whole time in class I was disagreeing with how many people in the class attacked Joann. I really did feel that she chose what she wanted, there was a flexibility where she did kind of know what the outside workforce was like but she just didn't want to dive into that. Also, I felt that it was kind of like also a nice way of writing the story in an attempt to say that, "Look, there are hardly women these days who are just solely housewives due to cultural changes so let's just remember that it isn't horrible to be a housewife either. It isn't demoting or a horrible life to live." While I did think that Joann did have much pride in what she did (cleaning the floor, lemon-scent room, etc.), I still got a look into her life which justified her choosing to be a housewife.

NOW after realizing that the article was placed in Esquire, I am kind of appalled by how Finkel may have actually tried to make a sort of figure out of Joann. From a women's perspective, I am kind of disgusted that in a way, it seems that he's kind of reminding the men who read this magazine that "You better go out and get a submissive woman like this and if you already have a woman, change her into this!" Maybe I'm reading into it but I guess it is true. If this were in a women for Good Housekeeping, I don't think anyone would have much of a problem with the piece. The problem is that it wasn't meant for Good Housekeeping. It was meant for Esquire. I have kind of changed my mind of this article now and I'm going to now bang my head on the wall. I hate how little things like this can actually change the whole entire piece! haha.

[Tsu Chih Ting]

To me JoAnn seemed to be a too perfect image for the ideology of the traditional femininity. Comparing this article with “TV without Guilt” the character seems to be more realistic, but I still think that the author is stereotyping JoAnn. Although the author is trying to humanize JoAnn by showing that she does know about tragic suicide, fatal accident, unsuccessful marriages, and what’s the best detergent for bathroom sink, but, those are all home (private sphere) related things or close by neighborhood gossips. What about issues like homeless people dying on the street, crimes, wars, or other things outside of the home environment? Aren’t they tragic too? Don’t they exist in the same world as JoAnn’s? None of these were mentioned in the article. It seemed to me that JoAnn is living in a fixed framework, like a figure purposely being placed in a painting. From the discussion we had in class, I am guessing that the reason this article is written for a non-Times-like magazine that targets male readers is because maybe the editor is trying to convey that the idea of traditional femininity has changed and this is the last housewife and no other women will be like her? The unreal feeling of the perfection from this character in the story reflects that this traditional model of femininity is "outdated" and should be view as fairy tale or museum display. Personally I think this article is trying to encourage the society to continue stereotyping women as suitable by nature in staying home and being a housewife. The title says that JoAnn is "the last” housewife in America, which seems like this article is trying to warn the society to be aware of this that other women are not like JoAnn anymore.

[Beth Black]

I would like to clarify that, in class, I was not consciously attacking JoAnn. I was attacking her story and the bits of important information it lacked, the focus on the male perspective when explaining why the other women worked, and the fact that the article didn’t seem to talk, at all, about why we might have good reason to make her a dying breed(er). Let me just say this – of everyone in the class, I’m probably the rare one who has BEEN a housewife, er, excuse me...homemaker. At the very least, I did it longer than anyone else. Now, I’ve come to see the real cost it can have on a woman’s life, not just because of divorce, but because of the fact – plain and simple, folks – that money is power. For example, my sister-in-law, the lawyer, has worked full time through all the years her three kids were growing up. She has the money and power accumulated to be able to take time off whenever she wants, to attend school functions, volunteer, go on numerous extended family vacations, and much, much more. When I found myself single with two kids, I had to take whatever jobs I could find, and that – despite my B.A. from UCI – I was at the mercy of my employers in a downsizing economy. I missed a lot of opportunities to spend time with my kids because I lacked the status and power to be able to get away from work. So, because I was there during their early years, at home...I missed a lot of their teen years (except for the times I substitute taught their classes at the high school). How’s that for a twist on JoAnn’s life? The older she gets (and I think she’s older than me now), the less likely she’d be able to find financial security on her own. And I’m not just talking about divorce. I know one woman whose husband died after many years of marriage. He didn’t have adequate life insurance, so guess what...she ended up working until she was nearly ninety. Ninety! I’m not kidding. She worked in a rest home caring for elderly patients. So, what does all this have to do with Finkle’s article? Why did he write it? How did he pitch it? Why did the Esquire editor buy it? Our speculations in class sounded horribly accurate.

Oh, and as for any more jokes at Esquire's expense...I wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole.

[Monica Ha]

I sent the post but it doesn't seem to be appearing on the blog anytime soon, so I'm putting it on the comments sections in case any of you stumble on it. I knew this would happen! oh well..here goes nothing:

Long Live the Career Smoker

Sorry it took me so long but here we go:

I thought this piece was extremely interesting and almost enlightening in many ways. He definitely knew how to make a solemn topic comical. If there was ever an article filled with contradictions, this would be the one. But these contradictions pose real though provoking questions about how each person thinks differently about particular issues. I also thought Eggers' style of writing was effective in getting his message across. The quotation-less remarks really gave me the sense of where he was going and what he really thought about the issue. Sarcasm: insulting yet painfully honest. On that note..

1. If you have a previously formed opinion on the issue of smoking, did Eggers' conclusion enlighten or offend you?

2. What was your impression on the relationship between Eggers' and his father. Do you think there was an underlying tension in their relationship or is the admiration for his father in the end truly sincere?

3. Eggers uses a lot of sarcasm in this article. Was it an effective way to show contradictions and it did it allow the audience to form or maintain their own opinions?

4. There are a lot of digressions, especially during the trial at the present time and his flashbacks to his childhood. how did they effect your take on the article as a whole - confusing? entertaining? Were the transitions between one moment and the next effective?

5. There are several narratives going on at once, how is each character (father, lawyers, plaintiffs) portrayed differently in the story?

[Zach Sire]

I thought I had read everything Dave Eggers ever wrote but I was wrong, I guess I'm not as much of a rabid fan as I thought I was. And as with so much of what he writes, this piece was rooted in his love of family and his knack for turning painful experiences into 'heartbreaking' revelations.

The whole smoking narrative, while leading him to the notion that his father was in fact a hero, was one big digression in and of itself from the more personal journey of coming yet another step closer to accepting his father's death (does anyone ever fully accept such a thing?) and being able to feel somewhat at peace.

Eggers is, and I hate to gush, such a master at constructing such perfect sentences with -- and ; and (...) and yet they still read so fluently. Then he'll toss in a quick fragment to break up the rhythm, "Oh well." I'm always sort of jealous in an appreciative way when I read him and I have to catch myself from poorly mimicing him in my own writing.

I've always 'connected' with him even though I've never gone through anything specifically the same as him. But I've felt sadness, desperation, and sarcasm in dealing with my own life...and still felt exactly like Eggers or his characters. Eggers proves that emotions are shared universally, regardless of the circumstance.

[Zach Gale]

Back to the Housewife story, first I do not think that JoAnn is moved beyond the stereotype, even though she is humanized with details from her past including her having dealt with others' suicides and the instability that comes when a housewife's husband leaves for good. It's great that she is humanized so that we can relate to her a little bit and sympathize if that is how the story hits you, but she may very well be selectively humanized. I guess one of many things this course has reaffirmed for me is that when you are reading a story/essay, ALWAYS remember that there is usually another side to every story.

While reading Tsu Chih Ting's entry, I was reminded of "The American Man at Age 10" and how the boy in that story seemed to be very thoughtful (including his thoughts on recycling, etc.). Why again did he seem so thoughtful? Because the author asked him numerous questions about many subjects to create the impression that the boy was especially complex and thoughtful. I think in this story the opposite happens. If Finkel had wanted to make JoAnn look complex, thoughtful and conscious of world issues, he could have asked her many questions about this. It is also possible that he asked her some of these questions, heard some answers that did not "vibe" with how he wanted to portray her in the story and conveniently left those details out.

All I'm saying is that in many stories (like "Long Live the Career Smoker") it is fully possible that we will either read or write with the "MTV Real World" effect," where, whether intentionally or not, the audience will only get a snippet or only parts of a person's true and full personality. Because of this, it helps to read many of these stories with a grain of salt if you are really trying to decide if a story is completely true to life.

--Zach Gale

[Sally Cho]

I genuinely enjoyed "Long Live The Career Smoker". I felt that his sarcasm and his brutal yet humorous details really showed his true emotions for his father. There are many times in my life where I will be pissed off at my parents and will tell me friends how we fought and yelled at each other and what not. And as sad as it sounds, it always comes off as kind of comical. In the end, I know that I even talk about it because they mean so much to me and these little confrontations we may have at home really do leave an impression on me. When Eggers goes into detail about his fathers' sickness, yeah the way it was decribed wasn't too pleasant, but I took this as this event really did hurt Eggers. It may come off as sarcasm and even funny at some points, but he writes it this way to maybe in a way ameliorate his own pain through the situation. I never had a close relationship with my grandfather and the times we shared in the past weren't the happiest of moments, but when he died of cancer last year, I felt the oddest void in me. I felt bad for all those times I didn't try to talk to him when he was around, or the times I didn't visit him when he was in hospital. Like Eggers, I felt anger towards my grandfather for some things he had done, I even felt at one point in my life that I hated him, but I see now that he really did mean a lot to me regardless of the amount of time spent together or the lack of conversation. Reading this article really reminded me of him and my attitudes towards his death during when it happened and now looking in retrospect.

[Audrey Au]

I really liked Long Live the Career Smoker. I can see however that a lot of the information and the way he manipulates his quotes and such, are strategically placed the way he wants them. I think that throughout the piece, he uses a very dark humor which makes the story actually more tragic and after reading the end, I felt that Egger's dad's story was even more sad because it purges an emotion that we are not used to having when a death occurs. It's kind of like, on the outside this is hilarious, but no, wow, this is actually really sad in your mind. I actually kind of found the whole wig thing with the parents was disturbing which made the piece even more compelling. I thought that it was clever writing with the sarcastic, dark humor tone that he used because he could've gone the other route making it more serious but I don't think it would've made as big of a response in the reader.

[Ryan Larsen]

I am a student at Weber State University in Utah. I am thinking about majoring in Literary Journalism. What is the job outlook for this field and what types of jobs would I be able to get with this degree? Any help would be great. Thanks Ryan

[Ryan Larsen]

Any help could be sent to thegoldenone80@msn.com