In Ellen Galford's 'The Dyke And The Dybbuk'

The taboo around feminism had prevented meaningful discourse about gender inequalities for a long time. The women’s movement of the 1960’s and 70s and the sexual revolution had a profound effect on the acceptability of not only discussing feminist issues, but satirizing them. The feminist movement of the 20th century marked a distinct shift from women serving as the objects of humor, to women becoming the creators and subjects of comedy. In the 1993 novel The Dyke and The Dybbuk, Ellen Galford used the mode of comedy as a progressive way of discussing the inherently serious subject matter of gender norms. Through the parody and manipulation of conventional gender roles and gender stereotypes, by way of Kokos the dybbuk’s witty narration and

One scene in particular that exhibited the parodic manipulation of gender norms was when Rainbow was being dressed for a religious wedding. Throughout the entire novel, Rainbow’s appearance was described as unconventional; she had very short hair, and seldom wore anything traditionally associated with women (dresses, skirts, etc.). Under the guidance of her Aunt Goldie, Rainbow was partially dressed in a completely different attire (that used to belong to her aunt), Goldie commenting “There we are- it looks lovely. Very suitable- high neck and nice long sleeves. And it will be beautiful with this chiffon scarf. Now… underneath…” (127), to which she was referencing the “neon-striped socks and vintage Doc Martens” (127) Rainbow was wearing with her formal outfit. The juxtaposition of the almost archaic women’s dress with her contemporary unisex footwear provides the readership with the very amusing image of Rainbow in an out-of-character look. Rainbow describes herself as feeling “like I’m in drag” (128), referencing individuals who embrace and exaggerate their rejection of gender norms and sexual laws. Aunt Goldie even acknowledges Rainbow’s general inconsistency with cultural gender standards, saying “They do think girls ought to look like girls” (127). This recognition of Rainbow’s personal style against that of conventional “girls” mocks the

Their characters are composed of what popular culture has overused and defined as the nagging Jewish mother(s). They manage to simultaneously care for and find fault in Rainbow, like when one aunt says “if you don’t mind me saying so, Rainbow darling, it wouldn’t kill you to shed a few pounds.” (36), as if including “darling” negates the criticism she just gave. Another aunt constantly references her desire for her lesbian niece to marry a nice Jewish boy, saying “I’d rather say mazel tov at Rosalind’s wedding, please God” (36). Although this may not seem very offensive, the devious usage of her birth name is a not-so-subtle diss to the life Rainbow had chosen for herself. Galford also includes more obvious humorous moments with the aunts, like their insistence on chicken soup as a remedy to all ailments (84), even dressing up as a collective chicken soup for a costume contest (166). Mocking the aunts in this undisguised and transparent manner parodies another gender role (that of the overbearing and protective mother) through comedic exaggeration of the