Post by katecavallo on Nov 18, 2015 1:07:32 GMT
Through reading Madwoman in the Attic and other similarly themed articles, it has come to my attention that men are painted rather ignorantly in nineteenth century literature.
The article focuses for a bit on how women are one of two things: pure angels or whores, in respect to how they conduct themselves around men. Madwoman in the Attic describes pure women as those who are virgins, Christian, submissive, and quiet. Men in the 1800s preferred these “saints” as wives because they were inherently easier to control; this same mentality is what steered them away from the independent, intelligent, sexual beings they dubbed “whores”.
What I found interesting though, was how little the article spent talking about the men. It seems in every aspect men were somehow ignorant to the whole situation, and it pains me to agree. Males in the nineteenth century- although they are often not explicitly described as being horribly misogynistic- were raised with the knowledge that women were fundamentally below them, their sole purpose being to bring babies into the world; women were bred to not take it personally.
What really stuck out to me though, was how Rochester appeared to be far more self-aware than most 1800s literary protagonists were. He came off as fully aware of the injustice women faced and of the distinct roles they had to play every day- and he planned on using this knowledge to test Jane.
If we revisit the definitions of “puritans”, we see that they were women who in every way were the “perfect wife”: obedient, quiet, reliant. Jane was none of those things, and it seemed like her traditionally appalling characteristics (all the independent traits she tries to hide) pulled Rochester in even closer. We see Rochester attempting to crack Jane throughout the novel as if he is saying “to heck with gender roles, I want a fiery lady!” We see a prime example of this in his rouse engagement. When Jane professes her love to Rochester (something a pure woman would NEVER do), her boss essentially says "Oh I was hoping you’d say that, now we can get married and live happily ever after!” It was as if Rochester didn’t think Jane was worth having if she hadn’t spoken her mind. Rochester seemed to prefer a whore to an angel, and for that time period, it was something of a taboo.
All this being said, do you think Rochester was an early feminist (was he trying to prove to Jane her own self worth)? Or was he equally as entitled, but with a different preference in personalities (was he being selfish trying to mold Jane into something he wanted)?
The article focuses for a bit on how women are one of two things: pure angels or whores, in respect to how they conduct themselves around men. Madwoman in the Attic describes pure women as those who are virgins, Christian, submissive, and quiet. Men in the 1800s preferred these “saints” as wives because they were inherently easier to control; this same mentality is what steered them away from the independent, intelligent, sexual beings they dubbed “whores”.
What I found interesting though, was how little the article spent talking about the men. It seems in every aspect men were somehow ignorant to the whole situation, and it pains me to agree. Males in the nineteenth century- although they are often not explicitly described as being horribly misogynistic- were raised with the knowledge that women were fundamentally below them, their sole purpose being to bring babies into the world; women were bred to not take it personally.
What really stuck out to me though, was how Rochester appeared to be far more self-aware than most 1800s literary protagonists were. He came off as fully aware of the injustice women faced and of the distinct roles they had to play every day- and he planned on using this knowledge to test Jane.
If we revisit the definitions of “puritans”, we see that they were women who in every way were the “perfect wife”: obedient, quiet, reliant. Jane was none of those things, and it seemed like her traditionally appalling characteristics (all the independent traits she tries to hide) pulled Rochester in even closer. We see Rochester attempting to crack Jane throughout the novel as if he is saying “to heck with gender roles, I want a fiery lady!” We see a prime example of this in his rouse engagement. When Jane professes her love to Rochester (something a pure woman would NEVER do), her boss essentially says "Oh I was hoping you’d say that, now we can get married and live happily ever after!” It was as if Rochester didn’t think Jane was worth having if she hadn’t spoken her mind. Rochester seemed to prefer a whore to an angel, and for that time period, it was something of a taboo.
All this being said, do you think Rochester was an early feminist (was he trying to prove to Jane her own self worth)? Or was he equally as entitled, but with a different preference in personalities (was he being selfish trying to mold Jane into something he wanted)?
