Anjuli Farha

Honors English III

5/17/12

Alias Grace and Feminism in the 1990s

Is she crazy or not? This is the question swimming through the reader’s mind throughout

Margaret Atwood’s novel, ‘Alias Grace’. Grace Marks is a fascinating character, adding an

element of mystery to the book and providing great insight into human nature. I explore the

characterization of Grace in the novel, specifically as regards to the aforementioned question; is

she crazy or sane?

By the 1990s, the feminist movement had officially shifted from second to third wave

feminism. As I will show, the third wave was very different in many ways. Not only were they

primarily led by youth, but they focused heavily on diversity and individualism rather than

solidarity or sisterhood. Second wave feminists felt that these new feminists not only lacked any

purpose or structure, but had forgotten their history and were therefore doomed to repeat past

mistakes. This sparked heated controversy between older and younger generations of feminists.

Both Grace Marks and third wave feminists were critical of the society around them,

especially as regards to society’s automatic assumptions, unfair expectations, and over-simplified

viewpoint. However, they made their animosity manifest in different ways. Grace remained

discreet, while feminists took the slightly more partisan approach.

In the novel Alias Grace by Margaret Atwood, many questions are asked,

and few, if any, answered. One of the most prominent questions is that of

Grace Mark’s mental state. Grace remarks on some of the things published

about her during her trial, saying,

I think of all the things that have been written about me - that I am an

inhuman female demon, that I am an innocent victim of a blackguard

forced against my will in danger of my own life,... that I am tall and also

not above average height, that I am well and decently dressed, that I

robbed a dead woman to appear so,... that I am cunning and devious, that

I am soft in the head and little better than an idiot. And I wonder, how can

I be all these different things at once? (Atwood 23) 

This is the mystery sustained throughout the book and even to the

end, remaining unsolved.

One possibility is that Grace truly is crazy; she may suffer from split-

personality disorder, and has honestly lost her memories of the events

around the time of the murder as she claimed. Grace Marks may really be

innocent of any wrongdoing. Many of the characters in the novel believe this

to be the case, sensing that somehow Grace is "controlled by an exterior

force that renders her powerless" (Hutchison 47). For some of Grace's most

ardent supporters, namely the governor’s wife and her friends, there was

never any question of this not being true. So when the Mary Whitney

personality seemed to come forward during the hypnotism, the general

reaction of the crowd was more satisfaction than the shock or surprise one

might expect, because these people had known Grace as she worked in and

around them day in and day out. They had seen her at her best, when you

could hardly tell her apart from any other serving maid and at her worst,

when she would have panic attacks (Atwood 30). They believed they knew

her well, and thought her to be incapable of coldly planning a gruesome

murder.

 Though at first they might have viewed her as a spectacle, a

"celebrated murderess" (Atwood 22), they soon grew to the realization that

Grace was harmless, innocent, and possibly a little simple minded. They

didn’t doubt for a minute that Grace was not entirely mentally stable, but

they knew she was no murderess. The governor’s wife and her friends soon

set themselves to securing Grace's freedom, hoping to make the world right

one innocent victim at a time. And they're not the only ones who believed

Grace to be innocent- Dr. Jordan also knows Grace very well, having talked to

her in depth and studied her. He not only analyzed her voice and mind every

day during the hours he talked to her directly, but also all the rest of the

time, for he thought of her nonstop and dreamt of her. Yet, after hearing

Mary Whitney speak during the hypnotism, he said, "That voice cannot be

Grace's" (Atwood 400). Also, if Grace was pretending, how could she possibly

have known certain details she said during the hypnotism, like knowing Dr.

Jordan and Lydia were holding hands, despite having a sheet over her face?

(Atwood 400) What else can all this mean, but that Grace is crazy, and

therefore innocent of any crime?

                However, there is also the possibility that there is nothing wrong

with Grace’s mind, that she is intelligent, creative, manipulative, and an

excellent actress. One could argue that she knows how to work around poor

circumstances to get herself where she wants, always looking out for her

best interests. This she had been doing since the very beginning. She put on

a show for her father’s landlady to allow her and her family to keep the

house even when her father couldn’t pay the rent. When the landlady got fed

up, Grace, realizing that her family was much too large to support,

abandoned ship and got herself a job and a life, never looking back

(Atwood 125-7). She steadily maneuvered her social position higher and

higher and who knows how far she might have gotten were it not for the way

things turned out with Nancy and Thomas.

       It is clear that she used James McDermott to get Nancy Montgomery,

whom she hated and was jealous of, out of the way. Despite Grace having

orchestrated the whole thing and using James only as the muscle of the

operation, James was hung and Grace was not. She put on a theatrical

spectacle for the jury, which included fainting and falling on the spikes

(Atwood 361). Her sentence of life in prison could not have troubled her

much. Her rough childhood taught her no circumstance is so dire that Grace

cannot get herself out of it.

      When Dr. Simon Jordan came to visit Grace for the first time, Grace’s

plan to get herself released was already in motion. To her, Dr. Jordan was

just another stepping stone on that path. She knew she had to impress him

with her story if she wanted him to write the letter that would help her

towards her freedom. She could have simply tried to convince him of her

innocence in any way possible, but her trial gave her a brilliant idea. She saw

the stories her lawyer invented for her, and the tales spun by the newspaper

men, and how easily the public accepted them as fact (Atwood 27, 374-5).

Doubtless this provided the inspiration for her brilliant idea to devise a

narrative for Dr. Jordan. Alison Toron says,

Grace not only foregrounds how contradictory different narratives

about the same subject can be, but she also demonstrates that they

are ideologically malleable. The stories that define and contain Grace

may have material effects, most obviously her physical containment,

but they are not necessarily permanent (Toron 9). 

Grace makes it very obvious that she planned the story carefully,

choosing what to tell and what not to tell (Atwood 359). Toron says

Grace "strategically employs narrative as a ... tool to secure her release"

(Toron 2). Being in prison gave her plenty of time for thought and she used

that time wisely, not only devising stories, but performing a "class

transformation" ( Toron 11) by improving her speech to make herself more

believable. Referring to her friend Mary Whitney's poor grammar, she says, "I

used to speak that way as well, but I have learned better manners in prison"

(Atwood 32). This proves Grace to be cunning and deceptive. Knowing this,

we cannot trust her as a narrator, although on occasion we can read

between the lines to find the truth.

      Another clue pointing towards Grace's carefully concealed intelligence

is the way she shifts the balance of power between her and Dr. Jordan in her

favor. Toron states,

Although Dr. Jordan has the power to bring highly meaningful

objects in from the outside world, giving him considerable authority in

her eyes, the power dynamics existing between them are

fundamentally unstable. By the time Dr. Jordan presents Grace with the

radish, their relationship is quite different from their first encounter in which

Grace will not engage in Dr. Jordan's guessing game and thus refuses

to submit to his rules. Instead, Grace imposes her own rules upon him

(Toron 6).

Dr. Jordan and Grace’s conversations each day do not follow the question-

and-answer format one might expect. Rather, Grace steers the conversation,

telling him whatever she wants. This allows her free reign to twist her story

in any way necessary to convince him of her insanity, and therefore her

innocence.

      Although her plan with Dr. Jordan falls through, through no fault of her

own, she doesn’t let that deter her. She takes advantage of the weak,

sympathetic hearts of the women around her, and allows them to believe she

is innocent and harmless. In the end, this pays off, and she finds herself

released, not into the world to fend for herself, but into the waiting arms of

Jamie Walsh, former sweetheart, along with clothes and provisions (Atwood

444-52). 

      One might well be surprised that Grace chose to go settle down in a

home with Jamie, rather than taking advantage of her new freedom and

setting out on her own or with Jeremiah, who offered her the chance to travel

with him and explore the world. But to Grace, marriage to Jamie does offer

her freedom to do as she wants, especially considering she clearly has

absolute control over him, along with social and financial stability.

Considering the circumstances she was in when her life began, she

accomplished a great deal. This has to prove that Grace got herself exactly

what she wanted, and that she is as intelligent as can be, right?

            The testimony of those closest to her and the revealing of Grace’s

second personality say that Grace is crazy. Grace’s metamorphosis from dirt-

poor to well off, as well as the miraculous way she escaped execution and

imprisonment, and her skillful playing of Dr. Jordan all say she is sane.     

On the other hand, are those really the only two choices? To think

about: A literary critic who reads the book believing that Grace is crazy will

have a very different reading experience from one who reads the book

believing she is sane. The former will pick up on even the slightest detail

proving Grace’s insanity, immediately saying, “See? Told you!” while

subconsciously ignoring or rationalizing any proof to the contrary. The latter

will do the same thing for any proof of Grace’s ingenuity. Both of these

people are incorrect. In order to get the best, most satisfying and

enlightening experience reading this book, one would be better off making

no assumptions. It's better not to decide you know the right answer when

you haven’t weighed the possibilities objectively. There may be no right

answer.

     It being impossible to know if Grace is crazy or sane, we must accept

that she is neither, and both at the same time. She resides in the spaces in

between, and cannot be confined by over-simplified binaries of crazy/sane,

or be confined by any existing boundaries. In regards to Grace, her lawyer

once said, "The stories she told ought never to be subjected to the harsh

categories of Truth and Falsehood. They belong in another realm altogether."

(Atwood 377) If we cannot restrain Grace between such binaries, why try to

do so to Margaret Atwood's book?

The decade of the 90s saw the emergence of new waves for social reform, spearheaded

largely by feminist youth groups. There were many radical groups working to change various

aspects of life, but the feminist movement in particular got a fresh start when 1990 rolled around.

The third wave of feminism began at this time, and it was wildly different from the previous two

waves, and was often not taken as seriously. The new generation was not only young but very

diverse, a trait which came as the result of increased effort to focus on the individual rather than

women as a whole. Much effort was also put into erasing symbols applied to feminists and

women by the media, either attempting to eradicate the symbol completely or to put it back in its

original context. Also, there was a significant amount of internal conflict between older and

younger generations of feminists, a result of the vast differences in this wave as contrasted with

previous feminist waves.

There were three major differences. For one, the feminist movement of the 1990s was

largely led by the youth, and for another, it included many women of different ethnicities.

Moreover, rather than having one or two specific goals as did waves one and two, feminism in

the 1990s generally aimed for a wide-spread change in the way people as a whole think of

women. Wave One sought equality on the political field, a quest which personified itself in

voting rights for women. Wave Two sought equality in the cultural field, seeking to achieve

places for women in the workforce. Wave Three decided that the two former goals, although

admirable, were shallow in that they killed only leaves of the plant while ignoring the roots,

leaving room for re-growth in the future. This criticism of previous endeavors actually caused

somewhat of a rift between the younger and older generations of feminists. More on this later. So

the new goal was to cut straight to the heart and change the way society viewed women in

general, not in one specific aspect.

The lack of specific goals prevented many from taking this movement seriously. They

said that without an organized purpose, it would get nowhere. Red Chidgey, in her essay entitled

‘Labors left unfinished: Third wave feminism,’ comments on the lack of purpose, asking her

audience, “Can we have a movement without goals?” In addition, Maria Buszek in her essay,

‘Waving not Drowning: Thinking about Third Wave Feminism in the U.S.’ states, “Some have

criticized the lack of cohesion (i.e. "sisterhood") in third wave culture—pointing to the brevity of

organizational attempts such as Riot Grrrl as third wave failures.”

However, with the lack of a specific goal came more flexibility. It left the movement

more open-ended, allowing a wider range of people to feel included, which made third-wave

feminism a more multi-faceted, all-encompassing idea, stretching beyond middle-class, white

women. Iris van der Tuin, in her essay called ‘Jumping Generations: On Second- and Third-wave

Feminist Epistemology’ states, “The problematic aspects of feminist empiricism and feminist

standpoint theory, namely their respective universalizing tendencies, are said to be solved by

feminist postmodernism’s focus on diversity rather than equality or difference,” meaning that

previously there was a tendency to ‘universalize’ or over-generalize, trying to give all feminists

the same face. Previous feminists tried to apply one universal definition of what a woman is,

does, and wants. In her book ‘Feminist Theory, from Margin to Center,’ Bell Hooks addresses

how white, middle class women primarily led the movement in the first and second waves, and it

was assumed that every feminist was white and middle-class. She writes, “(The white woman)

made her plight and the plight of white women like herself synonymous with a condition

affecting all American women.” This did not take into account that different women had

different circumstances and wanted different things. The new era embraced diversity by

accepting that there is no one definition that will fit everyone, which allowed a wider range of

people to identify with third wave feminism.

The third wave of feminism placed extra emphasis on the individual. It no longer tried to

give a universal definition of a woman, rather allowing each woman to define herself. This

kindly recognized that feminists came from very different backgrounds and often had no more in

common than gender, and sometimes not even that, as not all feminists were women. Naomi

Rockler-Gladen stated, “Third Wave feminists are encouraged to build their own identities from

the available buffet, and to not worry if the items on their plate are not served together

traditionally." This is the idea that third wave feminists used to replace the idea of a universal

definition of a woman.

The third wave of feminism also tried to erase the media’s representation of a feminist as

a ‘superwoman’ who could ‘have it all,’ successfully juggling a family, a career, and a life

(Hills). This left people with the impression that feminists were self-absorbed. Janny Scott stated,

“The superwoman then became the symbol and scapegoat for the culture's decline into

materialistic self-absorption, and the women's movement, instead of consumer culture, was

blamed.” The movement was trying to promote individualism, but not self-absorption, and yes,

there is a difference. Individualism advocates the rights of the individual, while self-absorption is

a preoccupation with oneself. The feminist movement was not designed to promote self-

preoccupation, rather to earn the rights and freedoms that women deserve.

The youthfulness of the new generation of feminists had its downsides, but also allowed

feminist ideals to be expressed through a variety of mediums, especially music. Much of the

music of the 90s was largely influenced by these feminist ideals, giving rise to many all-female

bands, including many falling under the category of ‘riot grrrl’ bands. Songs by these bands

often focused on issues related to women, like domestic abuse, female empowerment, male

dominance, and rape. Getting feminist ideas into popular culture helped spread the movement to

others who may have been scared off by the word ‘feminist,’ which is often associated with

radicals and fanatics. This made more people aware of the problems facing many women.

Fashion also changed along with the feminist movement. Previously, it was an unwritten

rule that things that seemed to represent women, such as makeup or high heels, were not worn by

feminists. In her essay ‘Heights of Madness,’ Sally Feldman states, “In the radical feminist

lexicon, wearing high heels has to stand out as the most pointed betrayal of all.” However, 90s

feminists chose to dress as sexy or un-sexy as they wanted. They emphasized their freedom of

choice, often wearing contrasting elements, such as a miniskirt with combat boots, and mixed

elements from different styles of the decade, such as grunge or punk.

They also endeavored to reclaim other female symbols, not only makeup and high heels,

but certain derogatory terms taken out of context and used in reference to women, or things like

knitting and other domestic pursuits. Elizabeth Groeneveld states, “‘Occupation: Houseworker’

is a viable and respectable choice for anyone, male or female.” She argues that being a housewife

and a mother does not mean you can’t be a feminist as well. A feminist supports the right of

women to choose their own occupation, rather than men or society choosing for them.

As mentioned earlier, there was a significant division between the third wave of the

movement and the previous waves. Van der Tuin called this state, “internally conflictual,” saying

that the newer feminists “started to negate the work of” older feminists, claiming that their

“diversified feminist analyses were better than the ‘illusion’ of intuited sisterly universalism.”

Thus, newer feminists scorned the ideas of the older generation, including their single-

mindedness and belief that all women stood in solidarity.

Words such as ‘solidarity’ imply bonds stretching across large groups of like-minded

people. Spreading this idea of ‘sisterhood’ thus implied that feminism was very widespread,

possibly more than it actually was at the time. This may have created more leverage for the

movement, but it implied that all feminists were more than just ‘like-minded,’ they were all

alike. And since the leading feminists of the time were middle-class white women, it seemed that

every feminist must be middle-class and white. This, of course, is untrue, as there were and are

feminists of all different backgrounds and cultures, including blacks, Hispanics, males, working

class citizens, and upper class citizens.

The newer generation rejected the notion of ‘sisterhood,’ instead reaching out to the

individual woman of any class or race. This broader appeal helped the movement grow, but the

inclusion of minorities made it seem less main-stream, causing the movement to lose some

leverage in society. It is partially this superficial appearance of insignificance that led many to

look at the third wave as ‘wave 2, part b,’ but in reality, the diversity of the third wave allowed

for the inclusion of feminists of any background regardless of class, race, ethnicity, or gender.

The third wave of feminism was characterized by the youth and ethnic diversity of its

followers. It emphasized the right of the individual to choose his or her own path without

unwanted pressure from society. It was much different from previous feminist waves, which

sometimes led to conflict between the generations with criticism from both sides. Feminism also

had a big impact on the 90s and its culture. Many claimed that third wave feminism did not have

a goal to reach for. This, however, is an extremely shallow perspective. Rather than being non-

existent, the goal of third wave feminism was, in fact, very admirable as well as ambitious. The

movement fought to change the way the world thinks, not only of women, not only of other

minorities, but of the importance of the individual, choices, and freedom.

Margaret Atwood’s novel ‘Alias Grace’ and the feminist movement of the 1990s both

have a position on society’s right to make assumptions about someone based on nothing more

than gender and/or class, and also on society’s unrealistic expectations of people. Also, both

Grace’s time period and the decade of the 90s are afflicted with the disease of over-

simplification, aka binaries aka either/or classifications.

Grace says that it doesn’t matter whether society has the right to assume things or not,

because they’re going to do it anyway. What matters is what you do to deal with it. Grace

doesn’t try to change society’s opinion of her. Instead, she recognizes that people will almost

always see what they want to see, and she uses that to her advantage in order to manipulate those

around her. For example, society would expect an insane murderess to behave in a certain way.

She deliberately does not behave as a murderess should, in order to convince them that she is

innocent by her actions, without saying a word in her own defense. She instead behaves as a

productive member of society, up until the moment it suits her better to behave as someone

suffering from a mental disorder: the hypnotism. At that moment, she transforms herself so

completely that those around her no longer recognize her as herself. They are so obsessed with

the binaries society has instilled in them since birth, like that of crazy/sane or guilty/innocent,

that they can’t see a third option. They see only that she is no longer sane, therefore she must be

crazy. She is not guilty, therefore she must be innocent. Like children, they still see the world as

black and white.

The feminist movement of the 1990s says that society does NOT have the right to make

assumptions about somebody based on only gender or class. In the novel Brave New World,

children are born into social classes, Alpha, Beta, Omega, etc., and each class is assigned work.

There is no changing this. If you are an Alpha, you spend your life doing this; if you are a Beta,

you do this. Feminists realized that society was doing the same thing in assigning gender roles.

Men work full-time jobs to provide for their families, men work in government, men get an

education. Women get married, women have kids, women stay home cooking, cleaning, and

knitting. Feminists wanted to get rid of gender roles, get rid of society’s bad habit of assuming

things, get rid of the over-simplified world categorized only into woman/man.

Grace and third wave feminists agree that society does jump to conclusions, and adopt

unfair expectations, and over-simplify the world. However, they disagree on the necessity of

radical action and protestation. Grace believes that it is not possible to have a world with no

assumptions, and really, would you want it to be possible? If you have a world where nobody

ever makes any assumptions about anything, you have a world of ignorant people going around

walking on eggshells making no advancements of any sort in any field. Sometimes assumptions

are necessary. Without them, I could never solve a Sudoku puzzle.

Through ‘Alias Grace’, Margaret Atwood criticizes the feminist ideal that calls for a

world without assumptions. She creates the character of Dr. Jordan to be our window into the

world of no assumptions. As any good doctor should, he tries to remain objective as regards to

Grace. He won’t decide that she is crazy, he won’t decide that she is sane, he won’t commit to

any decision at all. Where does this leave him? He’s forced to give up the case of Grace Marks,

along with his career, and go back home to live with his mother. Thus, Margaret Atwood

sarcastically criticizes an assumption-less world.

Fundamentally, Grace Marks and the feminist movement of the 1990s both saw flaws in

society. Grace, being a sort of Jamesian spectator, worked around them. Feminists saw those

flaws as a reflection of themselves, themselves being part of society, and worked to fix them.

Annotated Bibliography

Atwood, Margaret. Alias Grace. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. Print.

Grace Marks, serving a sentence of life in prison for alleged participation in double murder, tells her story to a psychologist, Dr. Simon Jordan, who seeks a name for himself in his field. Some supporters of Grace seek to prove her

innocence and secure her release. This is an excellent source, providing evidence to support both insanity and ingenuity, as well as providing ambiguity to allow for option of neither case being true.

Buszek, Maria. "Waving Not Drowning:." Make: The Magazine of Women’s Art. Dec 1999: 1-6. Web. 24 Apr. 2012. <http://www.mariabuszek.com/kcai/Make.pdf>.

This was a good source with many excellent quotes, although I was unfortunately not able to use all of them. The author effectively summarized the third wave and its pros and cons as compared with previous waves.

Chidgey, Red. "Labours Left Unfinished:Third Wave Feminism." thefword.org. the f word, 10 Mar 2008. Web. 24 Apr 2012.

<http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2008/03/labours_left_un>.

This was a decent source, which I quoted once. Red Chidgey argues that third wave feminists have forgotten the history of feminism, and are thus doomed to repeat previous mistakes.

Hill, Rachel. "Having it All." wordpress.com. (2011): 4. Web. 24 Apr. 2012. <http://rachelhills.wordpress.com/2011/12/29/having-it-all/>.

Rachel Hills comments on the hardships and unrealities of trying to juggle children, family, work, life and more. This was an OK source, which I more referenced than quoted.

hooks, bell. Feminist theory: from margin to center. 2nd ed. Cambridge: South End Press, 1984.

1-179. Print. hooks addresses feminism as regards to women of different color and class, a standpoint which was not taken into consideration before third wave feminism began. This was an interesting source, which I was able to quote to provide some support for the perspective of colored women.

Hutchison, Lorna. "The book reads well: Atwood's Alias Grace and the Middle Voice." JStor.org. Pacific Ancient and Modern Language Association, 2003. Web. 24 Apr 2012.

<http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/30037160?uid=3739744&uid=2129&uid=2&uid

=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21100741502071>. Gives an explanation of the literary concept of Middle Voice and

relates it to Alias Grace. This is an excellent source, and although the author remains neutral as regard to Grace’s mental state, it is often quoted in this article to support argument of crazy Grace.

Groeneveld, Elizabeth. "“Join The Knitting Revolution”: Third-Wave Feminist Magazines And The Politics Of Domesticity." Canadian Review Of American Studies 40.2 (2010): 259. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 24 Apr. 2012.

Groeneveld argues that crafting can be fun and does not have to contribute to the stereotype of women. It can be a political statement. This source was not spectacular. I expected the title to be sarcastic and did not realize how much of the essay would literally be about knitting.

Rockler-Gladen, Naomi. "Third Wave Feminism." suite101.com. suite101, 03 May 2007. Web. 24 Apr 2012. <http://naomi-rockler-gladen.suite101.com/third-wave-feminism-a20276>.

This article addressed characteristics and criticisms of the third wave, as well as how it differed from the second wave. It was very organized and straight forward. It was a decent source for me, mostly because of the one good quote that I took out of it.

Scott, Janny. "The Feminist Mystique." New York Times. 02 Apr 2000: n. page. Web. 24 Apr. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/02/books/the-feminist- mystique.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm>.

Scott effectively summarizes ‘The World Split Open’ by Ruth Rosen, providing some interesting comments and insights. This was a good source, with many good thoughts, not all of which I was able to use.

Toron, Alison. "The Model Prisoner." Canadian Literature 208 (2011): 12. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 24 Apr. 2012.

This gives an interpretation of the character of Grace and the aspects of Alias Grace which relate to the prison, discussing the way it literally and figuratively provides boundaries in the novel and its multiple meanings. This is an excellent source, and a good support of argument of sane Grace.

Van der Tuin, Iris. "'Jumping Generations': On Second- And Third-Wave Feminist Epistemology." Australian Feminist Studies 24.59 (2009): 17. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 24 Apr. 2012.

This addresses the classifications of ‘academic feminism,’ and the differences between the epistemologies of the second and

third waves. This was an excellent, although at times hard to understand, source which made me think a lot.

I have never been much into political activism of any sort. Radicals, extremists, activists,

protestors, partisans; they all annoy me and sort of scare me. You see, conviction is not exactly

my strong suit, so people with more than their fair share of passion simultaneously bother me

and make me jealous; repulse me and make me wonder what their secret is. So, although writing

about feminism may not have been my first choice, it was probably good for me.

In researching third wave feminism, I read a ton of feminist (and anti-feminist) writing:

essays, magazine articles, newspaper articles, books, blogs, forums, and probably more I can’t

think of right now. I slowly found myself agreeing with more and more of what I read. I began

to appreciate that a lot of the freedom women have today comes from the hard work of feminists.

True, some of what I read was written by exactly the type of crazy-sounding fanatics I have

always expected. But my research introduced me to enough level-headed feminists to convince

me that believing in change and working towards it is not automatically fanaticism. It certainly

increased my respect and appreciation.

As proof: the first thing I read before I began my research, when I still wasn’t even sure

if feminism was going to be my topic, was bell hooks’ Feminist Theory. I skimmed it, rolling my

eyes all the way through. Sure, there were a few points that caught my attention, but for the most

part I rather ignorantly dismissed almost everything she said. I went back and read it again after I

had almost finished my paper, and realized it was possibly the best feminist writing I had read so

far. She made some really good points, had some really good ideas, and I appreciated that rather

than making men out to be the only bad guys, she pointed out some of the internal flaws in the

feminist movement as well, proving herself intelligent and fair-minded. I felt pretty guilty for

how I had read it the first time around, but it at least proved I had made some progress in

understanding.

Alias Grace was the first thing I had read by Margaret Atwood, and I fell in love. She

immediately jumped up to second on my list of favorite authors. While researching this novel, I

heard the word ‘binary’ for the first time applied to something other than computer codes. Since

then, I don’t think I’ve stopped thinking about that word for ten minutes in a row. I ended up

writing my essay on one specific binary (crazy/sane), but my first idea was to write on binaries in

general. As a result of this, I wrote about, read about, talked about, and thought about binaries

nonstop for at least a month or more. I now apply the concept to my life, albeit somewhat

uselessly. When my mother tells me I can do the dishes NOW or not go to my friend’s house

tonight, I think to myself, “Those are my only choices?! That’s a binary! I’m being confined!

Grace would object!” And then I do the dishes.

This essay was a lot of work. It was taxing, gave me headaches, kept me up at night, and

made me want to pull my hair out on numerous occasions. It was probably the longest essay I’ve

ever had to write, but I also learned more from this essay than anything else I’ve ever written. It

was more than worth it, and I would write another one in a heartbeat. I apologize if you didn’t

enjoy the finished product, but I certainly enjoyed writing it.