A Feminist Criticism of a Farewell to Arms Essay

After end A Farewell to Arms, I found it difficult to reconcile Judith Fetterleys feminist at rig of the novel with my own personal opinions. I equalise that Hemingway does kick women to the curb in his portrayal of Catherine, but my reasons for pinning this evil on Hemingway are different from hers. Although she means well, Fetterley makes the ridiculous claim that by portraying Catherine as an angelic, selflessly loving woman to end totally women, Hemingway disguises misogynistic attitudes and a deep-seeded hatred towards the XX chromo about. This claim is not supported by the text.If we look at Hemingway through the lens of his own words, we find that his misogyny does not spring from a as well better to be trustworthy portrait of Catherine, but rather in his tendency to cast her piling into the dirt-Catherine is a dependent, baby-manufacturing trap that stifles Lieutenant total heat Poor, poor dear Cat. And this was the price you paid for sleeping together. This was the end of the trap (320). It is his penchant for energize and his take up for womanly comfort that keeps Henry coming back to Catherine, not some notion of love or true connection.This is Hemingways misogyny, however unintentional, unmasked. unless to get a true sense of this anti-Fetterley feminist view of the novel, it is authorized too look at the specifics of Hemingways construction of Catherine-facts that stand in direct opposition to Fetterleys stated attacks. First of all, Catherine is not Fetterleys unique and unattainable goddess-she is an object lens in Henrys universe, a feast of sensations but nothing more. She is akin to good food and good drink I was made to eat. My God, yes.Eat and drink and sleep with Catherine (233). Indeed, Henrys thoughts about Catherine, both when he is at the front or by her side, mingle with longings for good wine and reflections on sumptuous meals. In Henrys world, a good Capri would be priggish, a nice hunk of cheese would be grand, and s leeping with Catherine would be sublime. These things all match to the satisfaction of basic human needs. Every at present and then, Henry feels a grumbling in his loins-a periodic hunger for the cheese between Catherines legs.Hemingway dissolves Catherine into the least common denominator-the object, devoid of meaning or real splendour (when Henry isnt hungry). How can Catherine be an angel, as Fetterley claims, when she is merely an object, a small, rock give care satellite orbiting Planet Henry? This leads us to another facial expression of Hemingways treatment of Catherine. In the novel, she is a completely dependent and implemental slave to Henry and his desires-she is placed firmly under his heel. This is evident from her dialog Im good.Arent I good? You dont want any other girls, do you? You see? Im good. I do what you want (106). Through her words, we get a sense that the plainly thing that concerns Catherine is the level of Henrys satisfaction. She needs his approval he is the beginning and end of her world. This dependency resurfaces many times in the novel. In Milan, Catherine works herself to the bone all day, so that she can have sex with Henry all night. Throughout this period, her greatest worry is that she doesnt tack up to the girls that he has had in the past Ill say notwithstanding what you wish and Ill do what you wish and then you will neer want any other girls (105).When she is pregnant, her thoughts and concerns continue to center completely around Henrys happiness But after shes born(p) and Im thin again Im dismissal to cut it (her hair) and then Ill be a fine untested and different girl for you (304). Even during her long and arduous labor, Catherines exclusive worry is that she is a burden on Henry Oh, I wanted so o have this baby and not make trouble, and now Im all done and all gone to pieces and it doesnt work (322). Fetterley might claim that this amounts to selfless-love, but I think this phrase gives Catherine (an d Hemingway) too much credit. Catherine, as portrayed in the text, seems more like an amenable dog then a virtuous, unselfish being of light she is like a mutt that serves its master because it has no one else and cannot survive on its own. By the end of the novel, Hemingway succeeds in portraying Catherine as both an object and a docile subject in Lieutenant Henrys kingdom.This construction diminishes Catherines character and allows Henry (and Hemingway) to view her and the baby completely in terms of the burden they entail. They are a trap-flames that terminate the log that Henry the ant scurries around on. This makes it much easier for Hemingway to kill collide with Catherine and wash Henrys hands of all responsibility-the final pieces in his misogynistic puzzle. This harsh take is a more tenable alternative to Fetterleys feminist attacks on the novel.