Gone Girl
I have been reading Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn, and it has struck a chord that’s been struck plenty of times. At the beginning of the book, we meet the main character, Amy Dunne, a wealthy woman from New York with a strong presence in the young socialite scene. We also meet her husband, Nicholas Dunne, a man who grew up in a small town in Missouri, who picked himself up “by the bootstraps” to become a writer in New York City. Throughout the book, we take a peek into their rocky marriage from slightly pointed comments to Amy faking her kidnapping, disappearing, and coming back to spite her husband. How healthy and cool of them….
Before the major issues begin, Amy starts the relationship, excusing much of Nicholas’ behavior by playing the “cool girl” (like the monologue… whaaaat). I have a specific scene in mind where Amy invites Nick to join her and her friends for drinks with their spouses. One by one, the spouses show up, but Nick not only doesn’t show up but also completely neglects to respond to Amy’s invitation. Once she gets back home, Nick arrives at the same time and says he went to get drinks with friends and figured she wouldn’t mind his absence.
Now, one might think Amy would be upset, but as a woman with many hats, she expresses the exact opposite. Instead of being upset, she boasts in her diary that she’s unlike the other wives by judging a friend who was visibly upset about her husband’s tardiness and claiming that her friends were just playing social games to look good. She describes her friends’ expectations of their spouses showing up for their wives as “making their monkeys dance,” while portraying her nonchalant acceptance of Nick’s absence as a logical, cool-headed response. She found pride in not being “needy,” or in more concise terms, in expecting her spouse to respond to a text.
internalized misogyny
One could argue that her view of the women in her life stems from internalized misogyny. Through Amy’s perspective early in the book, women having proper standards, or even in cases where friends fall victim to the pressures of societal expectations, are labeled as tryhards rather than contemplating the root problem of misogyny. This phenomenon of women succumbing to misogynistic ideations has become more prevalent with avid Trump supporters, Erika Kirk, a businesswoman, and Hannah Pearl Davis, an influencer/debater, who are all gaining social media presence. Both use their platforms to promote the ‘traditional’ ideals of women only being a mother and wife, staying at home, avoiding education, and letting men lead exclusively. Pearl has gone as far as to say that women should not be able to vote because she believes they do not contribute enough to the workforce to have a voice in politics, despite the fact that women in the workforce have increased to 57.3% while men have steadily decreased to 67.8%. She remains outspoken in her beliefs and maintains a consistent presence in debates, despite believing women should keep quiet, much as Erika Kirk has done through consistent touring and timely dedication to the expansion of her late husband’s non-profit, Turning Point USA.
This intersection between fictional and real-life women not only submitting to misogyny but also promoting it for personal gain has made me realize that these people have made themselves into Sisyphus. When a woman promotes misogyny, she neglects to address that these views apply to them as well. By being outspoken in your beliefs, you are inherently being the antithesis of what you have tried so hard to sell to women, and in turn, you treat the ‘valuable’ parts of women as social currency. But what happens when the parts you claim to be integral to a woman, such as youth and beauty, lose value? Once youth and beauty fade, you are no longer the ‘cool girl’ hanging with the guys, but instead you are the very thing you frown upon: a woman with an opinion.