Here's a kick ass essay I wrote in response to Harriet Jacobs's slave narrative

Subverting Submission: Sexual Agency as a Means to Survival

In her Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Harriet Jacobs subverts the cult of womanhood’s ideals on female sexuality by displaying agency over her own sexuality. In her slave narrative, Jacobs gains a sense of self-affirmation through selecting her own sexual partner, uses her sexual agency as a launch pad from which she seeks broader agency in her life, and weaponizes her sexuality as a “triumph over her tyrant,” Dr. Flint (234).  Jacobs further subverts traditional views on female sexuality as she challenges the founding ideals of her audience’s sexual politics. In asserting that she, a slave woman, has not enjoyed the same luxuries as her readers, she declares sexual innocence a privilege reserved for the free, and demands that she not be governed by the same standards (233, 234). While the cult of womanhood views female sexuality as a mere reaction to husbands’ desires, Jacobs subverts the ideal that women must be reduced to a submissive role. In taking control of who she sleeps with, and what she will gain from the relationship, Jacobs’s sexual agency offers a much different take on the traditional tale of female sexuality.

As a slave woman, Jacobs has little to no agency in life. What she eats, if she eats, where she sleeps, and other things that determine a person’s quality of life, are out of her hands. Her sexuality is no different.  To her horror, Jacobs finds that she does not possess the autonomy to disobey her master, Dr. Flint, even when he starts making sexual advances towards her. “I turned from him with disgust and hatred. But he was my master” (Jacobs 231). In response to this, Jacobs subverts the cult of womanhood’s call for virtuous sexuality, and places herself in the driver’s seat. Rather than shamefully being defiled by one of the “fiends who bears the shape of men” (231), Jacobs declares herself an acting agent in her sexuality.  In engaging in consensual sex with her lover, Mr. Sands, Jacobs is able to achieve a sense of self and spiritual liberation through sexual agency. “It seems less degrading to give one’s self, than to submit to compulsion. There is something akin to freedom in having a lover who has no control over you” (234). It is revolutionary for Jacobs to assert a sense of self found through her sexuality – “freedom” -- in a time when women’s only expected desire is to satiate their husbands. With Mr. Sands, Jacobs is her own focus; she will be as affirmed by this encounter as much as he is.

As Jacobs’s intentions with Mr. Sands become further apparent, however, the reader learns her sexuality is a weapon against her master as much as it is an affirmation of herself.  “I knew nothing would enrage Dr. Flint so much as to know that I favored another; and it was something to triumph over my tyrant even in that small way” (234). Here Jacobs places her sexuality into a much different context. Her relationship with Mr. Sands is not merely about self-affirmation, but a rebellion against the man she is forbidden from disobeying. While the cult of womanhood calls for Jacobs to feel a sense of shame – and she does display that in the text – Jacobs decides that her sexuality is hers to use: if she cannot say “no” to Dr. Flint, she will protect herself by saying “yes” to another. The pro-active approach Jacobs takes with her sexuality declares that she is an acting agent; her position is not merely reactionary, as the cult of womanhood demands. Further still, Jacobs reveals her sexuality as a tool in a much larger plan. Truly calculated in her intentions, she aims to use her sexual agency to gain control over her future. “I thought [Dr. Flint] would revenge himself by selling me, and I was sure my friend, Mr. Sands would buy me. He was a man of more generosity than my master, and I thought my freedom could be obtained from him….of a man who was not my master I could ask to have my children well supported, I felt confident I should obtain this boon” (234).  Beyond an assertion of self, beyond a triumph over tyranny, Jacobs’s sexuality was her meal ticket. In realizing she could use her sexuality to escape Dr. Flint, and conversely, hook Mr. Sands, Jacobs uses sexual agency as a launch pad for gaining more control over her life’s path. Seeking freedom for herself and her children, Jacobs has truly subverted the ideals of female sexuality as responsive and submissive – she is in the driver’s seat now.

While Jacobs does much to subvert the accepted views on female sexuality, it may seem counterproductive that she openly displays feelings of shame and guilt over her sexuality (235). Nevertheless, Jacobs remains keenly aware of her audience: to present all of her subversion without remorse could potentially push readers too far. That is not to say, however, that Jacobs does not maintain subversive through her displays of remorse. In her appeals to readers, Jacobs is directly challenging the hypocrisy that founds these traditional ideals. “Pity me, and pardon me, O virtuous reader! You never knew what it is to be a slave, to be entirely unprotected by law or custom; to have the laws reduce you to the condition of chattel…the slave woman ought not to be judged by the same standards as others” (234). She has already done much to subvert notions on submissive female sexuality, but with this address to readers she asserts that even if these notions were correct, they could not apply to her sexuality. Here Jacobs forces readers to realize the hypocrisy in their ideals. If some women are protected as treasures, while others are sold as chattel, how can all women be expected to adhere to the same values? Jacobs informs her audience that the “purity” that they hold so dear has been “sheltered from childhood” as their “homes are protected by law,” while she “was struggling alone in the powerful grasp of the demon Slavery…” (232). Jacobs incites her readers to take a more critical look at the allowances made for their purity and innocence. With this, she is able to show remorse for her sexuality, while continuing to subvert traditional ideals.

In her slave narrative, Jacobs demonstrates agency over her own sexuality, uses this agency to declare a sense of self, pro-actively defend herself from Dr. Flint, and attempt to gain greater control of her life. In acting as an agent in her own sex life, Jacobs challenges the traditional ideals concerning female sexuality. Within the cult of womanhood, women are expected to be nearly a-sexual. That is, any sexual desires acted on outside of a marriage are condemnable, while within a marriage, all sexual behavior is expected to be in reaction to the husbands’ needs. With this, the sense of liberation Jacobs’s sexuality grants her subverts the popular perception. Moreover, her use of her sexuality as a manipulative tool, to gain things from men, rather than a mere response to their needs, was radical. Further, Jacobs highlights the hypocrisy in shaming slave women for the things they do to survive, while exposing them to the savagery of slavery. In doing so, Jacobs does more to challenge accepted notions of female sexuality, and again casts her sexuality as a weapon.

Oasis Health Foods: The Office

I work at Dunder Mifflin Inc.

For the humorless souls who have never experienced The Office, Dunder Mifflin is the fictitious paper company employing the series’ cast – it is the office.

There are an array of quirky relationships and inappropriate behaviors that make the Dunder Mifflin environment so unique. The running theme of hazing/pranking is a pretty visible example of that classic Dunder oddity. Watch a clip here.

I have never been hazed at Oasis* -- the health food store where I work. Nevertheless, from day one, I noticed that the employees and management were of the Dunder Mifflin variety.

One day, walking into the back office of the store, I made sure to introduce myself to both people sitting in the cubicle size room. To greet me, Meredith,* the woman that would be training me on the cash register, says to the other person in the zip-lock bag of a room, “uuuggh, I do not feeling like training today. I just don’t have the patience.”

It is 8:50 a.m. on my first day of work. 

Later that week I made a mistake on the register and Meredith punched me – literally.

Soon after, I was given a new Sensei; Roy* would be training me on the juice bar.  

Roy is an over-six-foot tall White guy. During our first bout of small talk, he asked me if I “had a boyfriend or what.” I answered "no," and his response let me know that he is the I-only-asked-a-question-so-I-could-talk-about-myself type.

“Oh, no. I’m single as f***. Yeah, I used to be fat as f***, so now that I’m not, I just like do whatever I want. And I think you know what I mean by that.”

I told him I understood what he meant and asked him how many ounces of liquid were we supposed to use for a 16 ounce smoothie.

The following Monday, I was across the store, and he asked me, at a speaking-across-the-store octave, if I had “gotten any of that Vitamin D over the weekend.”

What I find most interesting about Roy, though, is not that he’s so blunt. It’s that he is noticeably unfriendly. He’s rude. To the customers, to the other employees, to me. So when he asks me about “Vitamin D,” or says “damn, you should wear those jeans to work” when I come in the store on my off-day, I’m not offended by his frankness, I’m just confused as hell.  

There’s an older black guy, Stanley, who plays The Office’s token grump. What makes him so great is that he is blatantly rude – I mean, there is no wit there. But Stanley is also oddly comfortable talking to his co-workers about his personal life, well-beyond the appropriate 45 seconds that is office small talk. Stanley will tell you that your stupidity disarms him, and then talk to you for three minutes about his upcoming vacation– casually insulting you the whole time. “Ooooo, I can’t wait to get the hell up out of here and get some sun! Lord knows I’m sick of looking at your pasty faces!”

That’s kind of how I felt when Roy said “this may surprise you” – I didn’t ask – “but I listen to a lot of Migos and stuff like that.”

 “Why would that surprise me?” I asked the back of Roy’s shirt as he walked away. Strange how he offers up personal information, without making any attempt to be even remotely sociable.

Within the two-to-three day period I spent underneath Roy, I had seen Wilma*, one of the managers, around the store. We didn’t talk beyond the polite “hi, how are you?” But she seemed nice enough. Normal.

Early one work-morning, she walks up to me and Roy and says “Hi Danielle, I just wanted to let you know that you should park on the employee side of the lot.” I apologized for the oversight, and thanked her. The second she walked away, Roy turns to me and asks: “what a f****** b***h right?”

I foolishly assumed that this was a classic case of the new girl not having the full story. I must have missed something.

Oddly, every day for the rest of my time training, a different co-worker said something along those same lines.

Wilma would say “Good morning, Danielle,” and Meredith would mumble “what is her f***in’ problem?”

What really shocked me, though, was hearing one of the older cashiers talk about Wilma this way. The majority of my co-workers are in their early twenties, so their behavior was odd, but not unfamiliar to me.

Carla*, on the other hand, is 50. Easily.

On my same day-off that Roy strangely suggested I “wear those jeans to work,” Carla was the cashier that rang me up. I made polite small-talk—even if none of my co-workers knew how—and explained to her that I grocery-shopped at Oasis long before I worked there. Somehow she thought informing me of what she studied in undergrad also counted as small talk.

“My degree is in Psychology. The girl that you replaced studied that, too. I asked her if she did a psych work-up on all of us in here.” The eye contact got weird at this point. It was obvious she wanted to say more, so I offered her a chuckle of encouragement. She finished her thought: “I especially wonder what she diagnosed Wilma with. Am I right?”

I regretted my chuckle. Asked her if I could apply my employee discount to everything I bought, or if it was only redeemable with certain items.

I was wrong to assume that I was just the confused new girl. I hadn’t missed anything.

Wilma is Oasis’s “Toby” character.

Toby is one of the only people in The Office that takes his work seriously. On this basis, Michael Scott, the branch manager, fundamentally disagrees with the way that Toby conducts himself in the office. Throughout 9 seasons, the mystery of what the hell Toby ever actually did to Michael remains unsolved. Instead, there are a series of scenes in which Toby does his job, while Michael harasses, and schemes to “justifiably” fire him.

After a month working at Oasis, and bearing witness to the makings of a satirical sit-com, I have resolved to find the ironic humor in everything.

So when Kat,* another 20-something cashier told me that I “really need to take out my nose ring because the managers are like all about professionalism and shit” I discreetly enjoyed the irony of the name tattooed across her neck. I was laughing inside as I looked at the ink covering both of her arms.

She eventually realized the irony.

“Nah, it’s like I got hella tattoos, but I took out my eyebrow ring, though.”

I asked her if she could cover my register. I needed to go on break.

*all names and places have been changed*