ESCENA PRIMERA Vasta llanura

While ―punch‖ is the writer of the article, she acts not as the writer, but, rather, as the editor. ―punch‖ comments only on someone else‘s work, which also happens to be Willis‘s. This first article mirrors the creative rhetorical techniques to which she will return throughout that first year. She uses more than one voice or character in one article, and she includes editorial commentary on what she has written, acting as both writer and critic. Thematically, she states clearly what she will discuss in future articles. Disagreeing with the belief that women‘s spheres should be solely domestic, she says she is ―tired of such nonsense.‖ She expounds on the

degradation of a wife having to ask for money, a theme she will explore again in several articles, and she makes a few references to large families in which the wife presents her husband with an heir once a year, but the husband does not want to take financial responsibility for his ten children. A husband‘s unwillingness to help his wife with the responsibilities of child care becomes a frequent refrain in Willis‘s, and soon to be Fern‘s, articles. Here is a transcription of the article:

Fallacies of the Gentlemen

(By a lady who unfortunately knows them only too well.)

That women are only born to be slaves. That dinner is to be ready for them the very minute they come into the house.

That a lady‘s bonnet can be put on as quickly as a gentleman‘s hat.

That we can dress in a minute, and ringing the bell violently has the effect of making us dress one bit the quicker.

(Pretty lords, indeed!)

That nothing can be too good for them; for I am sure if you were to put a hot joint before them every day, they still would be dissatisfied, and would be grumbling that you never gave them cold meat.

That they know our age so much better than we do ourselves. (It‘s so very likely!)

That music can be learnt without practicing, and that it is necessary for them to rush out and to slam the door violently, the very moment we begin to open our voices, or to run over the last new polka.

That sleeping after dinner promotes conversation.

That they know what dress and bonnet becomes us so much better than we do.

That it is necessary to make a poor woman cry because a stupid shirt- button happens to be off. I declare that some men must believe that their wives cut off their shirt-buttons purposely, from the savage pleasures they take in abusing them for it.

That we are not allowed to faint, or to have the smallest fit of hysterics, without being told ―not to make a fool of ourselves.‖

That housekeeping does not require any money, and if we venture to ask for any, that it is pleasant to be met with all sorts of black looks and insinuations as to ―what we can do with it all;‖ or very agreeable to be told that we will be ―the ruin of him some day,‖ – (I should like to see the day!)

That the house never requires cleaning, or the tables rubbing, or the

carpets beating, or the furniture renewing, or the sofas fresh covers, or in fact, that anything has a right to wear out, or to be spoilt, or broken; and, in short, that everything ought to last forever!

That a poor lone woman is never to have any pleasure, but always, always to stop at home, and ―mind her children.‖ – (I‘m tired of such nonsense.)

One of the most notable aspects of the article up to this point is the words separated by parentheses. Those words come from a different voice than the speaker of the non-parenthetical words. The words serve as commentary to the main body of the text, which is also a

commentary. The parenthetical commenter signs the article by putting her name, ―punch,‖ in parentheses. By doing so, she visually connects the commentary in the article to the pen name, ―punch.‖ The other voice comes from the ―fair correspondent.‖ The ―fair correspondent‖ as a name is mentioned in the final paragraph, and comes from a third voice that sounds like an editor. In the final paragraph, the unnamed speaker writes,

―Our fair correspondent says she thinks the above fallacies are enough, for the present, and we certainly agree with her; but if the gentlemen show anymore of their airs, she declares that she will give them a lot more.‖ –(punch)

This second voice uses ―we‖ to refer to a collective editorial voice, whereas the ―fair correspondent‖ uses ―we,‖ throughout the article, to refer to women collectively. Willis‘s two characters each speak as part of their own group. As a result, Willis avoids first-person assertions, with a few exceptions marked off by parentheses, and gives a sense of being once- removed from direct responsibility for making these assertions. Further, by revealing at the end

that her words are being reprinted by ―punch,‖ the original speaker, a nameless ―fair

correspondent‖ is removed yet one level more from her reader. The creative ending, ―she will give them a lot more‖ (punch), ends the article with an assertion of strength, a punch, and with the strength of giving herself her own editorial approval of her opinions.