Due to the unfortunate fact that my group (Sammy, Daniel, and I) had run out of time because our debate was so heated, my post will be a continuation of the Gender keyword ideas and arguments brought up in class. Thank you to Eliza A. in putting it so clearly as a “Chris Brown/Rhianna” relationship, when referring to Mr. B and Pamela. That was awesome and very true to some extent. Now, with this said, the class began to ERUPT and started a very long and interesting discussion as to whether this comparison was true and whether or not Pamela should be with this type of person. This argument then spawned the question of what Pamela’s actual intentions of marrying Mr. B may be (great rhyme – poetry with Professor Harris). I will now explore the further implications observed through our extensive debate, and try to cover, to the best of my ability, both sides of the discussion.
I myself come to find Pamela very annoying, and many times, she pisses me off. This is because of the clear Chris Brown v. Rhianna case (which will now be referred to as Chrianna from this moment on). How could someone who has been treated like that by their master be that idiotic to forgive them and marry them? Sexual assault is something so serious and so malicious, that it blows my mind how Pamela could end up marrying Mr. B after all he had put her through. Men are pigs. But seriously, to put it into clearer and more current terms, would you let a friend who has been constantly sexually harassed or assaulted by the opposite sex fall directly into the arms of that monster? To see Pamela pull a Chrianna, if you will, is utterly disgusting to me. The cop-out of saying that Mr. B has matured and has gained her respect, and her virtue is still in tact – blah blah blah – bores me. It just doesn’t cut it for me. So with this said, do the members of my favorite class agree with these ideas, or disagree (I will play devil’s advocate with this side in my next paragraph, but my heart remains with these ideas…for Chrianna’s sake).
For those of you who do agree with the previous statement, there were also definite points brought up in class to argue the idea that it was okay that Pamela had married Mr. B after all he had put her though. For one, to touch on the “class” aspect a little bit, she belongs to a lower class than Mr. B. Being in her shoes, it isn’t such an easy lifestyle to live. A girl’s gotta do what a girl’s gotta do. In this case, she did. Pamela did what she needed to do in the sense that she was ensuring safety economically when she married Mr. B. She wanted a better lifestyle, and as Richarson portrays, her current lower class lifestyle is almost inescapable by doing it on her own. In order to obtain the type of lifestyle she dreamed of, she married Mr. B. Some would argue that this still isn’t good enough because there still is somewhat mental angst due to what she went through, but for others, the time period Pamela was in called for marrying him. Another argument for Pamela getting married is that maybe Mr. B had actually changed. To be fair, he did begin to show Pamela some serious respect after all the sexual assaults. Is that enough? Maybe so, but that my friends, is up for you to decide. Do you really feel that Mr. B has changed, and if not, does economic stability really overshadow mental stability? I would sincerely love to hear your thought on this, so please comment. Please. This brings us to further implications that were brought up by my group and I.
Some further questions that were brought up with our group went along the lines that with this discussion of Chrianna. With the fact that some say that this guy Mr. B is in fact a monster, and others say she had to do it for economic stability, what does this say about Pamela. To add to these ideas even further, Rosenthal states:
“Women indeed made up a considerable portion of the proto-industrial labor force, but usually they did so in the context of a network of family relationships and were not self-supporting. Given their low wages, women workers lacking strong kinship networks not uncommonly turned to prostitution anyway as a supplement to their incomes, rather than as an alternative to legitimate employment” (252).
With this said, what do you think of Pamela? Is she a prostitute to some extent? Is she a gold digger? Obviously, those are two extreme questions that were meant to make you chuckle a little. But, was her intention the entire time to secure herself financially, and if so, is this your definition of “rags to riches” that we discussed in class on Monday? What does that make you think of Pamela? Of Mr. B? All these questions are for you to comment on, and I will try my best to observe, comment, and repeat.