
Women have always been present in people’s lives, however they were not easily noticed. Men were always looked at as the people with dominance. Those men were supposed to be in control of everything and everyone. Oates character Arnold Friend is that stereotypical man of the older times. Being that the story is loosely based on the crimes of “The Pied Piper of Tucson” Arnold is not that criminal, but they show some similarities. Arnold has also been compared to the Devil and being just a dream that Connie is having (Coulthard 505). The women of that time and earlier were supposed to take care of the house and family and not go out there to meet new people. Joyce Carol Oates’ “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” serves as a turning point for the women. Oates is able to distinguish how women began to act during the 1960s. Connie, the main protagonist in the story, is a young girl who Oates uses as a representation of the feminist movement of that time period. The feminist movement happening throughout the 1960s, the crimes of “The Pied Piper of Tucson” and Arnold being looked at as the Devil and a dream helped to shape Joyce Carol Oates story “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” as her two main characters being representatives of what was happening in America at those times.

Throughout the 1960s and 70s, American women started to feel more independent and began to fight for their rights more than in the past. Connie is representative of those American women. Up until that point in America, women were looked at as housewives who were there to please their husbands. Even children, like Connie, were supposed to help their mothers and do easier jobs like teachers. For example, Connie’s sister June. June is twenty-four years old and still lives at home with her parents. She went to the family barbeque when her parents asked her to (Oates). June is representative of the oppressed women before they began fighting for their rights. Women were looked at as objects rather than people. The women did not have a lot of independence, if any at all ("The 1960s-70s"). Connie throughout this story is trying to gain and show how independent she can be. She acts older than she really is and does not look at the bigger picture in the end. She acts very rebellious, like the women protestors fighting for rights. Oates has her going out with boys even though her parents would not approve of that. Oates also has Connie staying at home by herself while her parents and sister go to a family barbeque. Connie is representative of the feminist fighters while her parents are representative of the people against feminism. The feminist wave of the 1960s helped to shape Oates story through the way she characterized Connie.

Connie’s character can also be looked at in a different way. Connie’s character can be perceived as irony. Her character is very self-absorbed and believes everything is about her. The feminists of the 1960s were not just fighting for individual rights, they were fighting for the women population as a whole. The ways in which Connie tries to gain independence for herself backfire on her and end up putting her in serious trouble. Connie’s character ends up having a weird, negative outcome in the end while the feminist movement gains a lot of ground and helps all of the women throughout America. Whether Connie was used as a direct representation of the feminist movement or irony against the feminist movement, Oates clearly relates Connie’s character with the feminists of the 1960s.

Besides the feminist movement, Oates story correlates with the events of the criminal case of “The Pied Piper of Tucson”. The story does not tell us that Connie is murdered so it cannot be directly related to that case. Arnold Friend is the male protagonist in Oates story and serves as a very creepy element of the story. “The Pied Piper of Tucson” case starred Charles Howard Schmid who raped and murdered three, young women in 1964 and 1965. Schmid wore make-up in order to look tanner and dyed his hair to make himself look more attractive. He darkened and enlarged a mole on his face to make it more noticeable. He also shoved cans and rags into his boots in order to make himself look taller (Mullins et al.). Oates made her character very similar to Schmid. Connie described Friend by saying “He grinned so broadly his eyes became slits and she saw how thick the lashes were, thick and black as if painted with a black tarlike material” (Oates). Connie later goes on to say “His whole face was a mask, she thought wildly, tanned down to his throat but then running out as if he had plastered make- up on his face but had forgotten about his throat” (Oates). These characteristics go along with how Schmid made himself look. Connie also discusses how Arnold has a hard time walking in his boots. She says, “He had to bend and adjust his boots. Evidently his feet did not go all the way down; the boots must have been stuffed with something so that he would seem taller” (Oates). Make-up and stuffing their boots are two elements these two men shared. Another element they share not mentioned directly in either case was the fact that both of these men felt a sense of dominance. Schmid felt like he had power over his victims. He felt as though those girls were his and only his. Arnold Friend acts in the same ways. He knows every detail about Connie and her life and he is not afraid to flaunt that. He demands that she goes for a ride with him and Ellie in his car. He wanted to be in control of her no matter the circumstance. These men are representative of the men during the time period of the feminist movement. The men had all the power in the relationships and that is what those women were fighting against. Oates representation of the cultural time period through Connie and Arnold shows just how messed up society was. Women had to fight for what they wanted, but at their own risk. The men still wanted to have dominance and most likely felt threatened by those women. Besides Charles Schmid, Arnold Friend has been compared to the Devil and Connie’s dream.

A.R. Coulthard wrote a journal article about Oates story and defended his beliefs that the story is based on realism and Arnold Friend is not the Devil or a figment of imagination in Connie’s dreams. Other critics of this story believe that Arnold Friend can be seen as having demonic characteristics. For example, the fact that Friend knows just about everything there is to know about Connie and her family. Also, other writers have mentioned that his name, Arnold Friend, is a disguise for the Devil when in reality it is just an ironic name Oates gave her character (Coulthard 509). Those critics also believe that Arnold Friend is dreamed up by Connie and he is not real. Coulthard defends his beliefs against those critics and says that Connie “exists in a dream-like state but never in a dream” (507). He believes that Connie is just a teenage girl who dreams about boys, just like any other teenage girl. Throughout the story however, Connie is caught daydreaming a few different times. For example, “…Connie spent around the house—it was summer vacation—getting in her mother’s way and thinking, dreaming about the boys she met” (Oates). Connie would not dream of Arnold Friend because why would she want to essentially kidnapped? No one would wish that upon themselves. 

Joyce Carol Oates story about Connie and Arnold Friend is one that will raise some serious questions about matters of that time period. Connie serves as a representation of the feminist movement. She wants to be more independent at a younger age and wants to be able to do what she wants to do. Arnold Friend is a cultural representation of the dominance that a man believed they had over women during that time. He and Charles Schmid are very much alike and they both shape their stories to revolve around them. Arnold Friend being compared to the Devil and as though he is Connie’s dream is not what Oates was trying to go for. She was attempting to show what can happen to women who think everything is about them. All of the events going on throughout the 1960s shaped Oates story to show that women with more independence can still get hurt. 
