What caught my attention throughout the novel, was the idea of "sweetmen," and the how many of the women presented offered this kind of life for the men. It was interesting to me because I never realized such a concept really existed during the 1920s. Granted the '20s was all about radical change, especially for women, but I never associated that with gender role reversals. The fact that these women were so willing to offer their livelihood up to men, with no strings attached, so to speak, is a new concept for me, and certainly not stereotypical.
WHy do you think the women represented in the novel were so willing to do this, to take on these "sweetmen"? Do you think it was so they could maintain a sense of control or that they just wanted to feel needed?
I was wondering about this too! This could be entirely off base here, but I've got a theory working. So, we all know the roaring 20's were a pretty crazy place with regards to parties, or as some might say, blatant hedonism in parts, and if you couple that with the Harlem Renaissance's emphasis on expressing individuality (remember, we were talking about drag shows, etc in class) and the feminist movement picking up speed (women HAD just gotten the right to vote, after all), then what you get is a bunch of women who are trying to subvert traditional social AND gender roles, and since they've got the kind of money that they could afford to throw wild parties just like was typical of men, then so too could they try to supplant the idea that only men were able to be providers in relationships.
ReplyDeleteNow, that being said, we notice that most if not all of these women who have sweetmen in the book are prostitutes (or at the very least, dancers), we've got women who may or may not have had a whole lot of control in their lives up to this point, so by being able to, effectively, buy a man, she maintains a certain level of control in her life that she may not have had before.