kchen
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by kchen on Nov 18, 2015 21:00:01 GMT
The idea of double standards is mentioned in the article, but it is not really discussed with depth. However, I found it interesting that the double standards from the 18th century have carried on into today’s society. The article states that the double standard in the Victorian Age allowed men sexual liberty while women were punished for it. I had already done some research on this topic for the Jane Eyre symposium with focus on the conflict of Man vs. Society, or more aptly, Woman vs. Society. Sex had very different meanings for men and women. For women, who were thought of as ruled by their sexuality, sex was only a means for procreation and sex for pleasure was viewed as dirty and scandalous. However, it was believed that men needed to express their sexual energy, especially through prostitutes. Women not only had to stay chaste until marriage, but also be free from any thought of sexuality. Jane fits this description, however, in Wide Sargasso Sea, Bertha has no hesitation in expressing her sexuality. Men, on the other hand, had no such restrictions. Essentially, they would have sexual relations with prostitutes/fallen women, but would then turn around and shame the very same people they just paid. This can be seen in Bertha and Rochester’s relationship. They have sex in an effort to fall in love, but when Jane learns of Bertha, Rochester shames Bertha and describes her as some sort of animalistic beast. Unfortunately, these double standards still apply today, but to a lesser extent. When women have multiple sexual partners, they are labeled as “sluts” or “whores.” However, when men do the same, they are praised for it.
|
|
|
Post by jillian on Nov 19, 2015 4:42:50 GMT
Quick Fun Fact: back in Roman times, men would have recreational sex with each other rather than with women because they felt that women were beneath them. Women were only used for birthing children for the family name. I totally agree with your post though. If you think about it, if all these unmarried men "had" to express their sexual desires and stuff, who were they doing it with? Back then, they would probably be killed if they turned to each other to express their sexual needs, so they had to be doing it with women. Its just like how? How are unmarried men supposed to be able to be sexually free without a woman to do it with? Women are trapped then. They either say no to men and be labelled as a whore who is indignant and hates men or have sex with men and be labelled as a whore who is a monster and a sexual beast. What is a woman supposed to do in that sort of situation? ? Seriously.
|
|
sko
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by sko on Nov 19, 2015 22:42:46 GMT
I totally agree with your post though. If you think about it, if all these unmarried men "had" to express their sexual desires and stuff, who were they doing it with? Back then, they would probably be killed if they turned to each other to express their sexual needs, so they had to be doing it with women. Its just like how? How are unmarried men supposed to be able to be sexually free without a woman to do it with? Women are trapped then. They either say no to men and be labelled as a whore who is indignant and hates men or have sex with men and be labelled as a whore who is a monster and a sexual beast. What is a woman supposed to do in that sort of situation? ? Seriously. I think the unmarried men went to prostitutes ("fallen women"), enforcing the idea of the spectrum. I also think that saying "no" doesn't really label the woman as a whore who is indignant. Since 19th century women were supposed to be pure, they would probably be viewed as even more angelic (or something like that) for refusing to just have sex with an unmarried or even married man. However, if you look at it a different way and see an unmarried woman refusing to marry an unmarried man, it would be quite different. If this was the case, the woman might be looked down on. Others would probably think it was strange and speculate that something was wrong with the woman, such as the woman being an indignant, sexual beast.
|
|
|
Post by aamornwichet on Nov 20, 2015 2:37:28 GMT
I totally agree with your post though. If you think about it, if all these unmarried men "had" to express their sexual desires and stuff, who were they doing it with? Back then, they would probably be killed if they turned to each other to express their sexual needs, so they had to be doing it with women. Its just like how? How are unmarried men supposed to be able to be sexually free without a woman to do it with? Women are trapped then. They either say no to men and be labelled as a whore who is indignant and hates men or have sex with men and be labelled as a whore who is a monster and a sexual beast. What is a woman supposed to do in that sort of situation? ? Seriously. I think the unmarried men went to prostitutes ("fallen women"), enforcing the idea of the spectrum. I also think that saying "no" doesn't really label the woman as a whore who is indignant. Since 19th century women were supposed to be pure, they would probably be viewed as even more angelic (or something like that) for refusing to just have sex with an unmarried or even married man. However, if you look at it a different way and see an unmarried woman refusing to marry an unmarried man, it would be quite different. If this was the case, the woman might be looked down on. Others would probably think it was strange and speculate that something was wrong with the woman, such as the woman being an indignant, sexual beast. Actually I think saying "no" may not have even been an option for many women. As Kassie said, women were "ruled by their sexuality." It was what defined them. Even though it defined them, they were supposed to express no desires over it. If a man said he wanted it, then they were expected to give because a woman's life back then was only worth what they had sexually, whether it be virginity or experience. Especially if a 'at risk' woman was asked by a wealthier more experienced man, the situation became one of influence. A "fallen woman" was often put their by force. A man could rape a woman, or deceive them into sexual practices and the man would have "expressed themselves sexually", while the woman would forever be labeled as a whore.
|
|
|
Post by jordanhilker on Nov 20, 2015 3:52:35 GMT
I found this post very interesting! The double standard that you pointed out about men being applauded, but women being whores for having sex for fun is a good point.I don't understand why society creates these double standards between men and women. Although you do see the double standard more towards women, you can't forget that men also receive double standards. For example, a woman playing with kids can be considered normal and she is just being "good with kids," but for a man he can be seen as "creepy" or a "pedophile." I know that the point of the proboards was to talk about women being treated unfairly, but people also have to remember that men can get judged too.
|
|
|
Post by echeng on Nov 20, 2015 23:00:21 GMT
I also want to point out a connection to the mythological gods unit we all had last year. Remember when Calypso flipped out on Zeus because she was being reprimanded for wanting to sleep with Odysseus, while Zeus was able to sleep with any mortal/immortal woman he wanted? We discussed this double standard last year too: how, just because Calypso is a woman, she doesn't have the same rights as a man. Of course, Zeus is the most powerful god, so he may have gotten special treatment, but there is still that stark difference between what a woman can do that is acceptable, versus what a man can do that is acceptable. Its amazing to see such similar motifs transcend through time. From Greek myths, to 19th century Victorian age, to... now? Is there still that double standard today? Maybe less of a sexual double standard, but in the home and the workforce, there is still that stigma that women are below men. That of course is improving with time, but will it ever disappear?
Furthermore, in AP Human Geography, I learned that the more "third world" a country is, the bigger the difference between how men and women are treated. It makes logical sense if you think about it. The poorer countries barely have enough money to educate men, let alone break societal standards and educate women as well. Women are needed to do housework and care for younger children while men toil away in the fields/hunt, or even maybe travel to better-off countries to take on jobs that no one else wants, just so they can make a little money. Developing countries such as Zambia, Niger, Sierra Leone, and Malawi are a couple where such instances may happen on a daily basis.
|
|