(The Lack of) Consent in Doctorow's Ragtime
The term consent is often used in the context of sexual interactions. It is difficult to fully discuss sexual harassment/assault without mentioning it. In short, consent (in sexual contexts) is the clear permission one gives before doing any sexual activity with any other person(s). The permission should be given verbally and obviously. Consent is not a permanent permission, meaning it can be taken away before, after, or during sexual interaction.
In Doctorow’s Ragtime consent is always assumed in sexual interactions, making it sexual assault. It’s not always as clear as the Employer touching Mameh’s breasts. Consider Father and Mother’s encounter in Chapter 2, “When the entire house was asleep [Father] came to her room in the darkness. He was solemn and attentive as befitted the occasion. Mother shut her eyes and held her hands over her ears.” We are taken from father entering the room straight to their sexual intercourse. There is no asking, Father simply assumes it’s the right time and that Mother is ok with it.
In Doctorow’s Ragtime consent is always assumed in sexual interactions, making it sexual assault. It’s not always as clear as the Employer touching Mameh’s breasts. Consider Father and Mother’s encounter in Chapter 2, “When the entire house was asleep [Father] came to her room in the darkness. He was solemn and attentive as befitted the occasion. Mother shut her eyes and held her hands over her ears.” We are taken from father entering the room straight to their sexual intercourse. There is no asking, Father simply assumes it’s the right time and that Mother is ok with it.
Another (much stranger) sexual interaction with the lack of consent would be between Mother’s Younger Brother (MYB) and Evelyn Nesbit. The quote from the book is too long to put in a blog post, but MYB is a) being a real creep by stalking Evelyn, and b) having sexual intercourse with Evelyn on the bed without getting any sort of permission. He simply jumps out of a closet and gets on her, basically raping her. The issue was that he assumed consent that was never explicitly given.
The lack of consent in Ragtime is definitely saying more about the 1970s than the Gilded Age. And that makes sense given that, even though consent may have been used in sexual contexts during the 1970s, it became more common to use it in sexual contexts during the late 1980s/early 1990s.
Opinions…?
Yeah, the part with Mother's Younger Brother in the closet made me a bit uncomfortable. Another thing that made me iffy was the way some of the historical figures were portrayed in sexual manners that weren't factually accurate. For example, the affair between Evelyn Nesbit and Mother's Younger Bro stuck out to me. Obviously, this is history as fiction so Evelyn Nesbit is a historical figure and is portrayed in a fictional manner, but I keep on thinking what would happen if Nesbit read about this portrayal of her and read about herself having sex with Mother's Younger Brother.
ReplyDeleteReading about Father and Mother's sexual interactions and the weirdly objective manner Doctorow talks about their relationship without emotion begs readers to question whether he himself is unaware of the need for consent or an emotional connection, or is trying to make a subtle critique of women's rights in the early 1900s. Personally, I would like to think that Doctorow is being subtle given his pointed critiques on class and race, but I'm not sure.
ReplyDeleteThese aspects of the book certainly say a lot about gender relations both in the 1970s and early 1900s. In the scene when Mameh's employer rapes her, it seems like Doctorow is making a clear statement about both how much power women had in society in the early 1900s and how immigrant women had it even harder to live in such a society, because they were reliant on the money they got from male authority figures. Even though that scene was quite clear, there are other parts in the book when Doctorow's ideas and motives weren't so clear.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Doctorow does try to point out how problematic women are treated in society, but I’m not so sure how much he is concerned with consent itself. It seems that he has more of an opinion on the exploitation on women’s bodies than their consent...if that makes any sense
DeleteI agree consent was certainly more public as an issue in the '70s than the early twentieth century. I think it's possible the underlying commentary on consent and sexual abuse was meant for a '70s audience, but it certainly still happened in the 1910s, maybe even more predominately. I don't think we can count Mother's Younger Brother's "closet incident" as rape because there was no actual physical interaction--that was more a "wrong place at the wrong time" thing. However, the relationship between Mother and Father is certainly unhealthy--although not uncommon--and Mameh's employer taking advantage is also commonplace but wrong by modern standards. It's possible Doctorow is just trying to show the extent of women's mistreatment rather than how the mistreatment is sexually unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great point. We haven't really addressed it in class but you're completely right that there are a lot of really uncomfortable sexual elements and themes in this book. It's strange because, as a lot of other people have already commented, one interpretation could be that Doctorow is trying to make a statement about women's rights or the prevalence of sexual assault. That makes a lot of sense in situations like the scene where Mameh was raped by her employer. But at other times it's really unclear what point he's trying to make, if there is one at all. It seems like at times, sex -- and the lack of consent -- is used as a plot device to develop the reader's understanding of other characters. But then that's a pretty thorny moral issue as well because of the way Doctorow presents it -- often that same bland, objective tone, with little moral judgement or satire -- and how it seems like that could downplay the significance of the situation. For example, there's the scene with Nesbitt, Goldman, and MYB. It's presented in that objective way and it's not really clear whether Doctorow thinks the reader should morally condemn MYB for his actions or not. It's not presented as that big of a moral failing -- despite the fact that in reality it would be an objectively very creepy thing to do, and obviously wrong. This has been a really long comment, and now I realize I don't really know where I'm going with it. so, in conclusion: it's weird.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things you mentioned was how Father assumed consent when he and Mother had sex, but to me, even that notion sounds pretty sketchy. The quote you quoted says that “Mother shut her eyes and held her hands over her ears”, which certainly doesn’t sound at all like someone who is consenting to any sort of action, sexual or otherwise, so even assuming consent would be a stretch. Another spot in the book I noticed with weird sex without consent was on page 111, after Father got home from the Arctic. Doctorow writes “[Mother’s] hands pulling his face to hers did not feel the tears” (Doctorow 111). This is another case where it feels like it should be obvious that the other person isn’t consenting – Father is literally crying – and yet they still have sex. Overall, Mother and Father’s relationship was really weird throughout the entire novel, and I wonder what Doctorow’s intensions for that are.
ReplyDelete