|
|
Post by lreinhardt230 on Nov 17, 2015 23:58:12 GMT
In the 1800's, women had a significant amount of acts they had to fulfill in order to be marriageable and wanted. Almost treated as goods being traded for currency, women were picked out by men depending on their looks and personality. In the packet it discusses how females ought to have looked sickly and childlike, both characteristics that cause a dependent person. And for this reason, women were stripped of passion and intellect due to their dependency to their male figures in their life. Drinking vinegar for an interesting pallor, crushing their organs with 18 inch corsets and practicing the "art" of fainting were some of the deeds that a respectable woman should carry out. As well as looking and acting the part, these ladies were deemed as socially accepted angels.
Now, with that said, Jane Eyre from Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre can be seen as a respectable woman in the 1800's without these things. Jane acts like an ordinary girl as to not rock the boat and make her struggles even worse for herself, but there is still a part of her that was not like this social norm. Jane never alters her behaviors or her beauty in order to be marketable for a man, but still has two males that want to marry her. I find this interesting because she never drinks vinegar to make herself sick and she never acts unhealthy, she still takes on a stronger persona. It is this factor that I think is so important in the novel because Jane is a plain, ordinary woman who does not market herself like a dependent child, but she is also not calling attention to herself like Bertha Mason. If she were to display her inside feelings on her outside for society to see, the novel would have been a completely different story. Over all, women in the 1800's created sickly beauty for themselves to match a submissive personality towards a man, but Jane Eyre has an ordinary beauty to match her hidden intellect that could never be revealed to society.
|
|
annej
New Member
Posts: 11 
|
Post by annej on Nov 19, 2015 22:47:36 GMT
Lauren, these are some very interesting points about how society in the 1800's placed a strong emphasis on the importance of looks and image. To go along with all of these points, I would like to pose a question to you. Since the Victorian Era, society has evolved to be a bit less extreme on the feminist side. However, what are your views on the importance of the image of a women, or a male for that matter, today? Do you still feel as though beauty has as much of an effect on the opinions of people as it did back in the day?
|
|
|
|
Post by lisasortino on Nov 19, 2015 23:24:39 GMT
Anne, I think that in today's society how someone looks is just as important as it was during the Victorian Era. People in our society, especially women, put a lot of time and effort into how they look. Maybe women are more concerned by how they look than men are because women get judged more based on there appearance then men do. But I would not say that society has become less extreme in its feminism views. Since the Victorian Era, women have gained more rights and have more oppurtunities to be equals to men. This shows that feminism has progressed because women are not being suppressed as they were during the Victorian Era but are gaining more rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by juliamann on Nov 20, 2015 2:59:09 GMT
Lauren, I like your ideas on Jane and the symbolism of her beauty, which I had never though of before. Anne, you asked if beauty has as much as an affect on people's opinions of a person and I would have to say yes. In fact with the evolution of social media, it makes it a lot easier for people to judge others than ever before. People, especially women, are constantly being judged on their looks because they can always be seen, as compared to Jane's time where you could only judge them if they were right in front of you. 24 hours a day people, mainly women, are be policed on their looks with segments such as "who wore it best" and other similar judgments disguised as pastimes. Many restrictive beauty standards still exist for both men and women in today's society.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghulamcontractor on Nov 21, 2015 1:20:37 GMT
Good observations Lauren. Everything you said makes Jane an exceptional character that stands out in Victorian literature. Bronte's aim was to create this independent character in the middle of two extremes. Another example that shows this is when Jane doesn't let the Reeds boss her around like some tool. Instead of just trying to assimilate under the Reeds, she fights John back and talks back to her Aunt. Right off the bat, Bronte shows us that this little girl will not let others influence her values and what she believes in. Jane Eyre is definitely a perfect character for the Victorian audience. Literature from writer's like Bronte really helped push forward equality and independence for women worldwide. It's great to see the improvement of society as mentioned in my other post. Can you guys think of any other characters from modern literature that are similar to Jane's situation? Even today's entertainment shows a female protagonist, such as Lara Croft in the Tomb Raider.
|
|
|
|
Post by tatummcp on Nov 21, 2015 16:21:57 GMT
Ghulam, I agree that author's like Bronte really help to fight for equality and independence for women worldwide through their female protagonists. I believe that one example of a modern literature character that is in a similar situation to Jane is Katniss Everdeen. Obviously, both protagonists come from the lower class (Jane as an orphan without any money and Katniss from District 13 where it was a struggle to survive each day), but because of this they are both extremely independent and very strong. They both appeal to the masses and in return they are able to not only fight for themselves but also the people that look up to them. The fact that Suzanne Collins chose a female protagonist rather than a male is similar to why Charlotte Bronte chose Jane to be the protagonist rather than Bertha Mason. Both authors were trying to prove a point that women can be and are independent while also helping to push forward equality and independence for women.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurendean on Nov 22, 2015 20:39:40 GMT
Lauren, I like your points here. Do you think that Jane was possibly not into doing thinks to make her the "angelic" figure because of the way she was raised? Aunt Reed never seemed to see her as her own child and she was never taught how to be the angelic figure her cousins may have been. She was seen as a poor orphan and was gree up as one too. So i believe that could be why she never did those kinds of things to herself.
|
|
