When I first read "What's That Smell in the Kitchen" I got the impression that this was not a poem meant to incite women to action as much as it was meant to warn men. I did not view the burnt dinners as something preconceived meant to be cooked in rebellion, but, rather, an accident that could potentially result in conflict. I originally saw this poem as a threat of war.
My thought was not that women burned dinners in order to anger the men/husbands and prove a point, but, rather, that the burnt dinners were honest mistakes. The women would serve a burnt dinner and the men would be ungrateful for the hard work and labor that the women had put into cooking the dinner. This could certainly result in a conflict-- if you were to spend time cooking dinner for a family only to have an ungrateful husband turn it down, wouldn't you be angry?
I feel that this poem is insight into the mind of a woman on a small scale. A woman (as all people) likes to be appreciated and likes to have her work appreciated. It's almost as though this poem is what is racing through a woman's mind as she waits to hear how her husband responds to the fact that his dinner is burned. I think what this poem is saying from a woman's perspective to a man is this: "If you take me for granted one more time, it's war!" I see this as a threat of war, though, not the war itself. I see this poem as a warning to men and husbands that they should be grateful and not take for granted all of the things their wives do for them because most likely their wives will not be able to repress their hard feelings forever.
Now, having already discussed this in class, my original thoughts were kind of shattered by something that seemed to make more sense, especially taking into consideration the fact that the author worked on behalf of women, most likely not just to threaten husbands, but to incite women to action, as well.
Emily T.
5 comments:
My interpretation of this poem was slightly different. First, I considered the use of "war" in the poem to be a metaphor, not literal, but that does not make it any less important.
My thought was that Piercy was trying to reframe the issue: We've always assumed that women are the ones that go and cook in the kitchen, cook a delicious dinner, and serve it with a "smile on platters glittering like wax." Through exaggerated language and humor, Piercy shows a contrary point of view: Why should we (women) go cook in the kitchen? Why not you? (referring to the husbands and men of the world)
As someone in class pointed out, burning dinners is rebellion in a small way. Society may have imposed this "duty" upon women, but by simply not fulfilling this "duty," women can to some degree assert their independence. Essentially, burning dinners is war on gender restrictions and presupposed roles: it's war on the glass ceiling.
I would imagine these thoughts going through the minds of our intentionally dinner-burning women:
Society says "good" women and wives should go cook unburned dinners for their husbands. By burning dinner, I show my refusal to abide by society's arbitrary definition of a "good" woman: I will rebel and create my own definition of a good woman/wife and define my own role in society.
It's war, all right. But it is not necessarily war on individual husbands, but on patriarchal and chauvinistic society as a whole.
Although I personally thought about the poem more similarly to how Eric did, I think that Emily's interpretations are insightful as well. After all, language is understood differently depending on the perspective of the reader, so isn't it acceptable for different interpretations to exist?
More importantly, Eric's comment reminds me of the question I had wanted to ask at the end of class today: Who is Piercy's audience in "What's That Smell in the Kitchen"? Is her poem intended for WOMEN, in order to provoke them to action, or is it intended for MEN, in order to criticize and possibly correct them? Or is the poem intended for BOTH men and women, or for neither of these groups?
On second thought, does a poem even have a definitive audience, or does the poet write without a specific audience in mind? Perhaps I am posing an irrelevant question.
(Janet Lee)
I enjoy all of these interpretations and see how they may possibly represent some part of the poem, yet the brief discussion of the nature of the title triggered other thoughts.
"What's That Smell in the Kitchen?" seems like a question to be posed by the husband: the one smelling the burnt dinner, the one meant to interpret that such actions are not incompetence, but war. "He" even goes on to quote his wife, and he defines her by terms used in the kitchen. Whereas the wife may have said, "You used to value me, but I seem to mean nothing to you!", the husband has interpreted that into something along the lines of, "You used to be my fine roast duck, and now you are nothing but Spam."
Does this mean that the man can not define the woman by anything but these stereotypical terms? Does he believe that the kitchen is her haven, and thus she must be defined by as such? The point brought up today in class about this "definition" is rather interesting, yet my observations lead me to believe that a man could possible be the narrator. He has finally realized that his wife is neither silly nor obtuse. On the contrary, her acumen has assisted in the creation of simple rebellion.
The husband has finally concluded that because she can no longer be "roast duck", his wife refuses to take any abuse. And what has she as a weapon other than burnt dinners?
This is just what I happen to be thinking, currently. I find myself swaying often during the discussion of this poem.
(Sam Maliha)
Well, Sam, on the comment about the roast duck and spam quote, how do you know the man is not quoting his wife directly? I think it's very possible that the wife could have said those very words.
And although I see how there are some points in the poem that portray the man's view, for the most part, I think that we don't have enough evidence to make a conclusion on how the man really feels. There are only three lines (including the title) that we can get a sense of how the man mentioned in the poem feels. Not to mention, this is all general, and the reaction is going to differ in every situation.
I see your point, Mary. But still, what is the WHOLE poem is in the point of view of the man? I think it'd be quite insightful, then, even more so than if the woman were to narrate it.
Don't all opposing forces want to know how the minds of their enemies work? I mean, it is "war", afterall.
(Sam Maliha)
Post a Comment