Category: Gender Roles

Jane Eyre, a victorian mentor, was a distanced figure for two essential reasons: sexual direction and class. For sexual direction, women, ultimately, had fewer rights than men. For one, no woman was allowed to cast a polling form, however, rich men and even lower office class men could cast a voting form. Also, women had some educational open entryways than those available to men. Additionally, unmarried middle-class women had far less great occupation options than men, with the title of the man being the primary choice. These are just three instances of Victorian women’s limited status. The second limiting variable of the mentor was the defenselessness of class status.

Regularly, the Victorian governess was in an awkward circumstance inside her chief’s home. She wasn’t just a servant, yet she was certainly not a relative either. It left her social position amazingly dark, as the workers and partners didn’t recognize her. As needs are, in the Victorian sense, depicting Jane Eyre from this oppressed figure is strong and on any occasion, shocking. Jane Eyre’s story, assessed against social benchmarks and wants for coaches, claimed a strong articulation about society itself. Possibly the novel was so fiercely examined by a couple, with its practical point of view beginning from a governess with a well-criticized representation of sex and class roles. The depiction of the hidden involvement among Jane and Rochester is a shocking piece of the story style.

By including confident sentences, reiterated usage of the pronoun ‘I,’ and an obsession with Jane’s beliefs and emotions, Brontë has formed the scene with an undeniable emphasis on Jane’s viewpoint. For example, Jane (as a storyteller) communicates the following: ‘…I would not be driven very away till I saw the occasion,’ ‘I was in the state of mind for being valuable, or possibly impertinent, I think, for I currently gravitated toward him once more,’ and ‘I felt no dread of him, and yet little modesty’ (Brontë 104-105). This consistent spotlight is critical to Jane’s feelings and wants.

The governess storyteller who in the record gives such a broad sum her mind would surprise various present-day readers. In the long run, in the outpouring of Jane’s choice to wed Rochester, the solid story voice still attacks. ‘Reader, I wedded him’ is seen by some as the fundamental, essential Jane Eyre line (Brontë 429). This uncovers the governess’s profound perspective. With regards to gender, Ladies of Jane’s time didn’t routinely ‘settle on significant choices’. The standard view was that a woman should consider herself to be a lucky and preferred position to be picked by a man for marriage and that she should repay him by faithfully serving him reliably. Contrastingly, Jane’s record disclosure shows self-admiration and confidence. This recording style shows a test to nothing new about Victorian culture.

In conclusion, Jane Eyre uses a describing strategy for the essential individual, underlining the accuracy of the assessment of the narrator. Since this narrator is a governess, considering the male-instructed and class-aware society in which she would have lived, the highlight of her feelings is noteworthy. Females had fewer rights than men and governesses had unsure class and societal positions. Crediting a strong voice to such an excluded narrator makes an impression versus modern-day society. Regardless, instead of welcoming this narrative as an achievement in regards to ladies’ freedom and a test to class rigidity, some significant Victorian critics criticized the novel. It is possible that these responses ended up out of undisclosed thinking, that being the clear feeling of risk to sexual orientation and class positions.

After watching the short film twice, the first thing I did was research the purposes of each character and who portrayed each character. Of course, I decided to research the character I found most interest in first, Mary Maloney, the story’s protagonist; she was the wife of Patrick Maloney. A happy and devoted housewife who was six months pregnant with her very first child. It was clear that Mary spent most of her time caring for and thinking about her husband while attending to domestic tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and sewing. According to the movie and text, “She loved to luxuriate in the presence of this man, and to feel–almost as a sunbather feels the sun—that warm male glow that came out of him to her when they were alone together. Mary Maloney was in love Patrick Maloney, but Patrick was so monotonous that it didn’t matter much to him. Which would be considered as normal for most films produced in the late 40s and early 50s. During this time period women were expected to maintain at home, women often didn’t work, and men were seen as superior. This time period was completely sexist in every aspect possible. Not only was it sexist, but it was degrading towards women.

Mary Maloney was portrayed by the late, American Actress, Barbara Bel Geddes. Ms. Geddes was an American stage and screen actress, artist, and children’s author whose career spanned almost five decades. She was best known for her starring role as Miss Ellie Ewing in the television series “Dallas”.

Patrick Maloney was a secondary character in this short film. His presence was cut short due to his wife killing him with a frozen leg of a lamb. I found it interesting how Patrick’s profession was important to how the investigation occurred. The cops gave special attention to the crime because it happened to “one of their own”. Another reason that Patrick’s profession was important to the story is that his wife Mary has learned a lot about police procedure from being married to a cop. She established an alibi before she calls to report the murder. Which was psychotic but smart at the same time in my opinion. Patrick Maloney was a police detective who cared more about his work than his marriage in my opinion. Even after Mary’s desperate attempts to make him comfortable and satisfy his needs, he did not reciprocate her feelings or efforts. WHILE SHE’S THE ONE WHOSE SIX MONTHS PREGNANT.

After analyzing both the text and the short film I concluded that, the portrayal of the characters was similar. The movie added more emotion to what was occurring. Since, while reading the story I was forced to envision facial expressions, body language, and tone. But in the short film, all those characteristics were easy to identify. Viewing the short film helped me to understand the storyline better. Body Language played a huge role in the short film in comparison to the text. According to the text couple began to become more tense when this Patrick started this conversation, “’What is it, darling? What’s the matter?’ He became absolutely motionless, and he kept his head down. ‘This is going to be a big shock to you, I’m afraid,’ he said. ‘But I’ve thought about it a good deal and I’ve decided that the only thing to do is to tell you immediately.’ And he told her. It didn’t take long, four or five minutes at most, and she sat still through it all, watching him with puzzled horror. ‘So, there it is,’ he added. ‘And I know it’s a tough time to be telling you this, but there simply wasn’t any other way. Of course, I’ll give you money and see that you’re taken care of. But there really shouldn’t be any problem. I hope not, in any case. It wouldn’t be very good for my job.’”

Firstly, in the text the author didn’t provide the audience with what happened. We were left to imagine the worst possible situations. While in the movie Patrick stated, “I want to leave you”, multiple times. Also, in the text the author stated that Mary sat still watching him in ‘puzzled horror’. Which led us to envision her facial expression and the vibe she was giving off. While in the movie you could see that Mary looked as if her heart was ripped out of her chest. She looked heartbroken, defeated, and weak. Which would be understandable taking into consideration of the situation.

My first reaction to the story after only reading it was that Mrs. Maloney was a psychotic woman who doesn’t take situations such as rejection, being neglected, or being told no very well. But that was only because I hadn’t looked deeper into the text, and deeper into the reasoning as to why Mrs. Maloney did what she did. In my opinion, Mrs. Maloney was the best housewife anyone could ask for. She cooked, she cleaned, and she sat awake waiting for her husband to get home late at night to comfort him after a long day at work. And it was slightly upsetting to see that Mr. Maloney didn’t care much for her loving actions. Because let’s be real here, if I was six months pregnant and I’m sitting up late at night waiting for my husband to get home from work so I can comfort HIM. Only to find out that he wants a divorce, I’d kill him with a lamb leg too. But everyone’s view is different when it comes to if she was doing to much. I looked at other reviews over this movie and I saw comments such as “If he said he was going to give her money and make sure her, and the child were taken care of I don’t see the problem. Why couldn’t she just let him go”. But you have to take into consideration that this woman loved this man with all of her heart, and she was not about to sit here and let him try to wave money in her face for her to let him go.

In conclusion, I’d like to say that I enjoyed reading and analyzing the story, “The Lamb to The Slaughter”. It taught me that even though each gender was supposed to act a certain way back then. Any major incident could change it all. I liked how Dahl played on the traditional gender roles, how there were many different themes that could be used in this story such as deception, betrayal, justice versus injustice, and that first impressions can be misleading.

In the fairy tale Snow White by Jacob Grimm, In order for Snow white to obtain protection and shelter, the Dwarfs forced her to perform the traditional roles of a woman inside their house, such as cooking and cleaning. Why is every little girl’s dream to be a housewife like Snow White?

Snow White is portrayed as someone who has no ambition, whilst reaffirming the feminist theory of acculturation. this fairy tale is one that many believe teaches children to put beauty before personality and who the person is, also it teaches that all your problems can be solved as long as they find the right man. Snow White makes domestic chores seem like they are a way of living and that she as a woman is doing what she does best. This story teaches that a man is the only goal in a woman’s life Snow white is “saved” by a bunch of men.

When Snow White was brought back to life after the apple stuck in her throat was removed, the prince demanded that she was the love of his life and demanded that they get married. He did not ask her to marry him he simply said, “You shall become my wife” and Snow White agreed and went along with him to be married. There was no background to their relationship, they were not familiar with each other, but he insisted they get married. the evil step-mother sets an example for young girls teaching them that manipulating men, by utilising her beauty and devious sexuality is the way to get what you want. She is the perfect princess,she is beautiful obedient and innocent. Snow White has no motivating factors she has no aim or ambition, Unlike the step-mother. She is entirely selfless as well as a blank slate with no sense of self. she can be easily manipulated by themale characters and storyteller. She merely operates in the tale as an image, a perfect body which men can take to their own desires. the dwarves to give up Snow whites body to the ownership of the prince claiming that she will be his most prized possession, asking the dwarves to ‘let me have it as a gift’. She is no longer a person, She has become an object, that can be transferred from man to man without objection or question.

The fantasy that is most often presented is the ending happily ever after”, which follows with the fantasy of finding the one Prince Charming. By believing these fantasies children in society lose the true sense of what to expect in life. Also Both the Queen and Snow White used their looks in order to gain power. Snow White used her beauty to manipulate the Huntsman The King married the Queen because of her beauty snow white was a portrayal of how women are naïve, only accepted if they are considered beautiful by men and have to do what men tell them to.They were ready to do it, until she looked at them and they saw that she was beautiful, so they were unable to kill her. So, the fact of the matter is that if she was not beautiful to them, they would have gone along with killing her. No matter how afraid she was or how much she begged them not to do it they would have killed her if she was not beautiful to them.

Pride and Prejudice is a romantic novel written by Jane Austen which discusses women’s duties or roles in the home or work force, and how they have changed for a better life for women. For work duriung the 18th century, “Generally this work was done for the benefit of the family, not the outside world. “Women’s Work” would have included such activities as spinning, weaving, and churning.” (Gender roles in Colonial America). Women also didn’t have many rights and did not receive much respect. Women were very oppressed victims of a patriarchal society. During this time marriage was a means of survival because when thinking about women in the workforce in the 18th-century women typically didn’t work. It was very difficult for an unmarried woman with no prospects to make money because they have very little power. The title also has a large role in the story because they are so much talk about women and social standing which helps portray the theme that Austen was trying to convey. Pride is confidence and self-respect that someone feels about themselves or a feeling of satisfaction with their achievements. Prejudice, on the other hand, is a preconceived opinion on others that is not based on reason or any experience. Jane Austen uses these two terms to address how women’s roles are in her society, and does she do something for women, or does she sentence them to the same fate as everyone before her.

Prejudice is a big part of the theme and it is discussed through the whole novel even when it beings with a powerful statement that would seem to shows that Pride and Prejudice reinforce the stereotypes from the 18th century. Austen says ‘It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife’ (Austen 2) because this talks about the well-known idea that women’s worth and secure future is determined by the man that she marries. This also introduces one of the central themes of the novel which is when Mrs. Bennet, Miss. Elizabeth’s mother does everything in her power to get her children married off. Mrs. Bennet says ‘a single man of large fortune; four or five thousand a year. what a fine thing for our girls’ (Austen 3) because due to the nature of women’s social status at that time a woman being able to marry into wealth is a great way for the woman to secure the bright and comfortable life that everyone wants to be able to live. This is the type of life that Mrs. Bennet feels that her children deserve to live and she feels as if though it is her responsibility to help them achieve that type of lifestyle even if it means setting them up with a socially acceptable man despite her daughters wants. This is another example of marriage being a means of survival because it was treated as a business first and love second. However, upon further examination of whether or not Pride and Prejudice reinforce stereotypes of women or not it becomes more clear that Austen does not reinforce this idea.

The conclusion that the Pride and Prejudice reinforce the general ideas of women stereotypes during the 18th century is a hasty one because Pride and Prejudice eradicate the sexist stereotypes of women during this time, and the prejudice that surrounds the women. She does this through the character of Miss Elizabeth when she shows up a muddy dress, declines a marriage proposal from Mr. Darcy. This also shows how things have changed for women over time because in the 18th century anything a woman does affects how people view them, and it reflects their future. Miss Elizabeth’s muddy dress represents a woman being considered the low class and having a low social standing and being unfashionable. Generally, low-class women have many children and can’t get a wealthy man to support them. This really breaks the mold of how women were treated because “women who “broke the roles” faced public ridicule, and occasional legal admonishment for their actions” (Gender roles in Colonial America). This is also how every male writer has portrayed them since that’s how things were and they were being realistic rather than showing how women can lead more fulfilling lives, and that marriage can be more than just money and social standing.

Pride is also a large part of the theme and hinders the men during that time to not be with or marry women that make them happy rather than women that make them and their family look better. This was important during the 18th century because “strong family structures were necessary because the family was the basis for all other institutions. The government, church and community all worked through the nuclear family unit”(Gender roles in Colonial America). Which is why it is more important that the wealthy men marry a wealthy woman the keep their family structure strong and wealthy to keep the hierarchy that was important at that time. One example of this is Mr. Bingley because Mr. Charles Bingley is a wealthy man in a very high social standing and is also considered to be an extremely attractive man. It is clear how wealthy Mr. Bingley is when it is said that “Mr. Bingley inherited property to the amount of nearly a hundred thousand pounds from his father” (Austen 19) A man like Mr. Bingley wouldn’t marry a low-class woman like Jane because it would put a dent into his reputation which he is socially required to keep high by marring another wealthy woman and raising wealthy children. That is also what Mrs. Bennet when she wants to try to keep Mr. Bingley around her daughters. She is trying to get him to fall in-love with one of her children so that they can marry into wealth to secure the good future that his future wife would have. This works very well because Mr. Bingley falls in love with Jane Bennet, Elizabeth Bennet’s sister, and eventually they find a way to be together and admit to each other that they like each other.

Another example of a man who lets his pride interfere in his happiness is Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bennet’s best friend. Mr. Darcy is a prideful and arrogant man who hides his true feelings for Elizabeth Bennet. Mr. Darcy also shows his pride in his nature, in his speech, and his feels very highly about himself. He is so pride full that at first he was very dislike even by Elizabeth Bennet and she even says “I had not thought Mr. Darcy so bad as this—though I have never liked him. I had not though so very ill of him”(Austen 100). Mr. Darcy also has a difficult time with the ideology of societal expectations when he beings to fall in love with Miss Elizabeth and it takes him a lot of self-reflection so that he can realize that the stereotypical woman that he should marry is not what he wants and he goes through a dynamic character development as he falls in love with Miss Elizabeth Bennet and chooses to put his pride aside so that he can ask Miss Elizabeth to marry him because he loves her. They also have to communicate and be flexible thinkers to help their genuine love to grow.

Pride and Prejudice is a very complex novel that breaks many gender roles,and Jane Austen uses the book to revolutionize the treatment of women. It also forces the society to begin when it comes to how middle and upper class people interact with each other. The story also relates to Jane Austen’s family. She was a child in a family with 8 children. She almost married a 21 year old heir, but later changed her mind, and neither her nor her sister every actually married. Her family also was not wealthy but more middle class. She related to the characters in Pride and Prejudice in why a middle class woman at that time would be willing to marry a wealthy man, but instead should break the mold and marry for love not business. It is a concept that is very much followed to this day as women marry solely for love for the most part. Some people marry out of wealth for love which is remarkable that it is stories such as Pride and Prejudice that started the change that allows women to follow their heart and their dreams and get jobs. As, women now work in all aspects that help the outside world and not just the home. Women can decide where they want to work and who they want to marry, and many women work in law enforcement, science, as doctors, and in the home. It really has been up to the women themselves. Which is something that Jane Austen was hoping to accomplish when she wrote a book defying the odds of what women were allowed and not subjecting women to the same fate as all the other male authors of that time period. She paved a road for change for women and men.

Works Cited

1. Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. 1813.
2. “Gender Roles in Colonial America.” Gender and Sexuality in Colonial America, http://public.gettysburg.edu/~tshannon/341/sites/Gender and Sexuality/Gender Roles.htm.

Introduction to Witchcraft and Gender Roles in Salem

For my paper, I read The Crucible. I will discuss the trials based on the significance of gender roles and the Puritan culture. I will also discuss the motivations of the producer and the accuracy of the film. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, Witchcraft can be defined as the use of sorcery or magic and communication with the devil. There is a common belief that there is a link between the ability to perform witchcraft and association or power derived from the devil. The Salem Witch Trials are considered crucial to the history of women. Some would argue that the story of Witchcraft is a story of women in power. Witchcraft challenges our ideas and fears of powerful women. It is also a key to the past concerning the place of women in society. Even though there were men who were executed during witch trials, women were by far the target. With 20 people examined and then hanged for these accusations this is a significant event in American history. In the first scene in “The Crucible” we see young women who were playing a game with the servant Tabitha in the woods under the light of a full moon. The game was to cast a spell on the males the girls had crushes on. They were caught by a minister from the town. Miller’s play combines religious hysteria and sexual lust. During the course of the movie, there is an outbreak of accusations of witchcraft. When the play was introduced in the 50’s it was easy for many to see the sentiment concerning the anti-communist paranoia of the McCarthy period. In today’s society, we are less concerned with our fellow Americans being communists but were paranoid that they might participate in satanic worship. To understand how these witch accusations resulted in the deaths of many and to understand the characters of Miller’s movie we will need to understand the culture and religion of the Puritans. The movie has some similarities to the actual events but is not historically correct.

Puritan Culture and Strict Gender Norms

In the Puritan culture establishing gender roles was especially important. They were well established and strictly adhered to. If you were to step out of line from the heavily guarded roles as a woman you could face severe and inhumane punishments from today’s societal standards. The male role was given superiority and power in Puritan society. They faced lesser punishments for not maintaining their roles, the female would take the blame of a household not performing to the standards they were given. Young women were taught their gender roles by example watching and learning from their mothers. Women were taught from birth to be subordinate to men, and their identity including property was attached to the men that they were related to or married. They took care of the children and were in charge of buying and preparing food. They were also tasked with monitoring and directing indentured servants or slaves and performing all household chores. Those women who did not adhere to gender roles were considered dangerous. They represented a loss of structure and a world in which men were unable to keep hold control of their position. Men had been taught to be in control of their families and to be the leaders of their society. Women who “broke the roles” faced public shaming and ridicule. They were faced with legal action and harsh punishments. The family as a whole would attend church together. However, it was only the men that were allowed to teach the Bible. Hence the belief that women would be more likely to succumb to the devil’s influence. The most effective way of dealing with women who gained a place of power was Witchcraft accusations. Women were especially vulnerable to these accusations because they were unable to gain the support of their peers as they would only be labeled for conspiring with witches.

The Role of Religion in Witch Accusations

The Puritan religion was very strict in its views. They took watching over the congregation seriously in order to keep members of the congregation away from the devil, as they believed him to be behind every evil act. The ministers preached warnings of hellfire and brimstone to instill fear of the devil and his power. The constant reminder of fear from the devil and its persuasive abilities was the main cause behind the scandal of the Witch-hunt and subsequent trials. Many religions have similar views as the Puritans. There are many literary works that can give an example of witch hunts in England prior to the settlement of New England or the Salem witch trials. However, given the views of the Puritans involving a woman and their distance from the teachings of the bible it is more easily defined that these accusations of witchcraft come from a place of controlling women or punishing them for straying from their assigned gender role. Some of the women who were first accused as witches had strayed from the Puritan lifestyle, they were considered to be social outcasts. The community felt that it was their duty to get rid of sinners as they believed them to be working for the Devil. The Puritan’s belief was that the Devil was as real as God. The members of society who failed to uphold Puritan values and morals, mostly women and children, would be swayed by the devil to do his work. Witches were believed to be working for the devil which was punishable under Puritan Law. The accused women had failed the community values by straying from the teachings and challenging the gender roles making them an easy target for the Devil and his witchcraft.

In the book, Abigail is seen joining the other girls in the forest casting her “spell” for the man John Proctor. Her ambitious lust and practice of such witchcraft lead her to be a prime accuser in the witch hunt. She names Tibutha, the female servant who was with the girls in the woods. Tabitha received no due process before a beating until she admitted to having conspired to expose the young impressionable girls to witchcraft. Being a woman and a servant would allow the men of the village to have confronted and attacked her as she was not only subservient for being a woman but was also owned by a parishioner. From a historical perspective, Thomas Putnam, the father of the afflicted girl known as Ruth (Ann Putnam Jr) was considered to be a major influence in the Salem Witch Trials. He not only accused but testified against 43 people, and his daughter testified against 62 people. It is thought that the Putnams manipulated their community and used the hysteria in Salem to gain a place of political power. Professor Peter Grund from the University of Kansas performed a handwriting analysis to determine that of the Salem witch trial documents over 100 belonged to Putnam himself. This included the depositions from afflicted girls, that were in fact written by Thomas Putnam himself. Many of the depositions shared such familiarity, it is conceivable he wrote most himself. Putnam would seem to have used his position of power as a male leader in the church to take advantage of the testimony of the afflicted children and eliminate the opposing political groups in the church to file these false accusations of witchcraft. While it is possible members of the church such as Samuel Parris were conspiring with Thomas Putnam, not all of the members were involved. The teachings of the Puritans would be the fuel to this witch hysteria given the God-fearing lessons teaching that any strange or evil behavior would be works of the devil. As mentioned before, witchcraft was defined earlier to be a sort of relationship with the devil the accusations were, in fact, a perfect fit for those accused of being responsible for such odd behaviors of the children.

Arthur Miller’s Metaphorical Use of ‘The Crucible’

Arthur Miller cleverly uses the name The Crucible as a metaphor. The word itself has many meanings. One definition for ‘the crucible is a severe test or trial, this definition is typically used in attribution to the play. Within the play, the witch trials were severe making a direct connection. Also, many characters not only were subjected to the literal trials of the witch hunt but also to John Proctor a moral concerning his desire to keep quiet after his affair with Abigail vs doing the right thing and calling the young woman out for her deceitful intentions. The play was written in response to what is commonly known as McCarthyism, even though the play premiered before the participation of Senator Joseph McCarthy. The questioning was already underway by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA). Miller penned the play in reaction to the bullying and informing on others that had transpired during this questioning. When Miller was called to testify, he refused to participate. He told the committee, “I could not use the name of another person and bring trouble on him.” He repeated some of the words he had written for John Proctor, and was cited for contempt. His conviction was overturned some two years later as the questions had served a purpose for legislation. The Crucible was written to address McCarthyism. However, it remains relevant to society in its study of how one operates. The screenplay is full of moral choices that are shaped by the judgments and views of the collective society. Miller has been proclaimed by some as a prophet. He was described as someone who calls attention to the moral and ethical decisions that must be made.

Character Analysis and Historical Inaccuracies in ‘The Crucible’

The film, The Crucible is not a true and accurate history of the Salem Witch Trials as many of the characters have been changed to fit into Miller’s dramatic screenplay. There are a number of reasons many of the characters were changed. Many are made up of several different real members of the community. He reduced the number of people claiming affliction by witches to 12 young women when in reality there were men and women of all ages who had made such claims. Miller himself admitted while in reality there were several judges, he combined them all into the judges Thomas Danforth, and John Hathorne, and Samuel Sewall. He said he believed he was able to combine the attributes of them all into a smaller number of characters so that those who watched the movie would still be able to understand the nature of the “strangest and most awful chapters in human history”. A few other historical differences in characters were also made. Abigail’s age was raised to 17 when in reality she was only 11. She had served as a maid or servant for the Proctors. She is referred to as the Reverend Parris’ niece although no historical evidence has shown support for this relationship. It is noted that she may have been distantly related. Putnam’s household was also changed. Thomas Putnam’s daughter was not named Ruth, but Ann. This change was most likely so that the mother and the daughter were not confused. The mother was referred to as ‘Ann Putnam Senior’ and the daughter as ‘Ann Putnam Junior.’ Reverend Hale would not have signed any ‘death warrants,’ as he claims to have signed in the play. In the book, it is shown the accusers were a small group of a dozen teenage girls when in reality there were men and adult women who also claimed ‘affliction,’ including John Indian (Tibutha’s husband who does not appear in the screenplay), Ann Putnam, Sr., and Sarah Bibber to name a few. Tituba, who is the Reverend Parris’s slave is portrayed as if she is of Black African descent, in the primary sources she is always being referred to as ‘an Indian woman. Historical facts have shown her to have been a slave from Barbados. Contemporary descriptions of her also refer to her as a ‘Spanish Indian’, placing her pre-Barbados origins somewhere in the Carolinas, Georgia, or Florida. Historians believe her to have been Amerindian, probably South American Arawak. It is possible that these could all be somewhat correct as many blacks and Indians were often interracially combined in Barbados plantations.

In the play, Abigail Williams and John Proctor are portrayed as having an affair. Elizabeth Proctor is accused by Abigail as a witch in the hopes to marry John should Elizabeth be executed. The affair is the main reason why the witch hunt began. When the hysteria of witchcraft takes over the town, John does not want to expose Abigail for lying, as their affair would become public, and his good standing ruined. Abigail did, in fact, provide John Proctor’s initial accusation in April of 1692. There has been no evidence of a historical basis to support this, nor that she met him before her accusation.

Conclusion: The Impact of Gender Roles on Salem Witch Trials

Although Arthur Miller’s screenplay “The Crucible” is not historically correct in many ways, with the changes he made he was able to create a play that was not too difficult to follow and had many aspects that appealed to several emotions. He was also able to create a platform of entertainment that provides a deeper look at the political agenda concerning the witch trials. The characters offer appeal for their positions of power and vulnerability. The gender roles of the period are clearly outlined. The ability of the judges to condemn the accused women with very little evidence or basis other than the out crying of a few young girls, who fear their own punishments for having participated in a game that by the community standards was witchcraft and association with the devil gives a good representation of what the Salem witch trials were like for women in this time period and culture. I personally would’ve enjoyed a more historically correct version to cultivate and satisfy my fascination with the history of Salem. However, I was still drawn into the stories of these characters and able to see the religious and social standards of the time.

Introduction to Gender Roles in Elizabethan Society and ‘Hamlet’

Although a single woman controlled Europe during Shakespeare’s time, the Elizabethan society was quite patriarchal, women were always considered the “weaker sex” and always in need of protection. When women were married off, they had one main purpose, bearing children, as childbearing was considered a great honor at the time. Despite the Elizabethan era being a time of progress, women were still thought to be less than men in almost every aspect of life. In “Hamlet” by William Shakespeare, there is a lack of female characters from the start of the play. Gertrude and Ophelia are more notable female characters, and as the play progresses it is clear that they are completely different characters with different motives; however, they both fall victim to the patriarchal society of the time. The social divide between men and women are evident all throughout the play as the patriarchal society of the time forces both Gertrude and Ophelia to show signs of prominent love for at least one other male character in the play, submit to the dominance of the male characters, and the overall degradation of women throughout the play.

Victimization of Gertrude and Ophelia Through Love

Firstly, both women in the play show signs of love for at least one other male character in the play, which might be another factor in their suffering as a victim. As soon as Gertrude and Claudius are introduced, it is clear that Gertrude holds love for Claudius, disregarding the fact that Claudius is a manipulating and a horrible person. She shows this extreme love for Claudius during act four scene four by putting her life into the hands of Laertes and “restraining him” in his attempt to murder Claudius. This evidently shows how Gertrude’s love for Claudius has resulted in her becoming blind to danger, clouded her judgement, and does not see how Claudius is planning to kill Hamlet behind her back. This clouded judgement and perception ultimately leads to Gertrude’s death, effectively proving how Gertrude is a victim of her love for Claudius. Alongside Gertrude, Ophelia is also a victim of her love. Ophelia’s love for her father means she is obliged to listen to and obey his every decision, resulting in her ending her relationship, with Hamlet, which she cherished. Ophelia’s and Hamlet’s relationship was supposedly very strong, as evidenced through their love letters, from act 2 scene 2, where Hamlet says, “To the celestial, and my soul’s idol, the most beautified Ophelia—”, unfortunately Ophelia’s response to the letters is,“I did repel his letters and denied His access to me.”, just to please her father’s wishes. Her blind obedience to her father’s wishes shows how she is a victim of patriarchy as she decides to end her relationship with a man she loved and wanted to eventually marry, just because her father wanted that. Ophelia is also a victim of her own love for Hamlet. During act 3 scene 1, Hamlet gives a misogynistic speech in which he tells Ophelia to, “Get thee to a nunnery”, she replies in a lyrical tone, describing his “noble and most sovereign reason” and “sweet bells jangled, out of time and harsh”. Ophelia’s love for Hamlet has effectively clouded her judgement resulting in the fact that she is unable to defend herself, and similar to Gertrude, views Hamlet as a “noble man”. The intense love that Gertrude and Ophelia feel towards a male character results in them losing their independence in the process. Both Gertrude and Ophelia actions convey how they are a victim of their love for their corresponding male character, heavily conflicted with their love they only see the positive side of Hamlet and Claudius, which means they are oblivious to the pain and misery that they are dealing with.

Patriarchal Dominance and Its Impact on Gertrude and Ophelia

Next, the patriarchal society of the time forces both Gertrude and Ophelia to submit to their male characters dominance. Claudius is a character that mentally dominates Gertrude when it comes to any situation, such as in act four scene six when he assures Laertes that, “And for his death no wind of blame shall breathe, But even his mother shall uncharge the practice, And call it accident.”. During this scene, Claudius is attempting to convince Laertes to kill Hamlet, and informs him that everyone wants him dead, including his own mother, even going so far as telling him that everyone will lie and call it an accident. This is a significant scene as it shows Claudius’ immense level of deceit, but also shows Claudius’ power dominance over Gertrude, Claudius is positive that Gertrude will abandon her son, by calling his death an accident, and effectively dominates her feelings towards her son, further highlighting her status as a victim in this plan. Gertrude once again faces male dominance from another character, this time from her own son, Hamlet. During act three scene four, Hamlet uses detailed imagery to explain his feelings towards the relationship of Gertrude’s and Claudius’, pure and utter disgust. He states that they are “stewed in corruption”, revealing Hamlet’s perspective on his mother, that she is just as corrupt, if not more, than Claudius. He then goes on to compare them to animals, “making love over a nasty sty”, disrespecting Gertrude’s relationship with Claudius in any way he possibly can. Gertrude responds to Hamlet’s furious intervention with her own pleas by saying, “O, speak to me no more! These words like daggers enter in my ears. No more, sweet Hamlet!”. Her use of a simile here signifies how Hamlet’s words have the power to hurt her emotionally, this highlights the love she holds for son and how she is the victim of his grief fueled with anger stricken ways. Alongside Gertrude, Ophelia is also victimized because of male dominance throughout the play. Polonius, her father, asserts dominance over Ophelia every chance he gets. For example, in act one scene three, in a brief conversation between Polonius and Ophelia, Polonius says, “Affection, puh! You speak like a green girl”, calling her a “green girl” refers to him thinking of her as nothing more than a “green girl”, and goes on to remind her that she does “not understand herself so clearly. This encounter immediately shows Polonius’ controlling and dominating nature, he tells Ophelia that she is not capable of controlling her own mind, so he can easily control her thoughts however and whenever he wants, resulting in Ophelia having no choice in many situations and just waiting for her father’s word. Furthermore, during act two scene two Polonius utilizes Ophelia’s love letters from Hamlet to further back up his theory about Hamlet going insane to Claudius and Gertrude. Polonius goes on to explain his plot to expose Hamlet, how he will “loose my daughter to him”, he is saying that he will send Ophelia to start up a conversation with Hamlet, enabling Polonius, Claudius, and Gertrude to spy on their conversation, once again exhibiting his dominating nature. Ophelia has no choice in this matter and it is decided that she will encounter Hamlet and start a conversation with her, allowing everyone to spy on them, by her father of course. All throughout the play the oppression that Ophelia and Gertrude face gets more and more clear, and explains how they may simply be a victim of their corresponding male characters dominance.

The Degradation of Women in ‘Hamlet’

Lastly, a prevalent theme throughout the play is the degradation of women. Back in Shakespeare’s time, women were not given a lot of respect and were treated as accessories to men, and this can be witnessed all throughout the play. Firstly, in act 3 scene 1, Hamlet and Ophelia come in contact and Hamlet tells Ophelia, “Get thee to a nunnery”, he is essentially telling her to join a brothel and is implying that she is a whore. Next, in act 3 scene 2, Hamlet uses a series of phrases to disrespect and degrade Ophelia sexually by saying, “I mean, my head upon your lap?”, and, “lie between maids’ legs.”, these phrases suggest specific sexual interactions between the two and Hamlet is saying these to hurt Ophelia anyway he can by degrading her, leaving Ophelia as the victim once again in this situation. As Hamlet finishes venting out on her, Ophelia remains calm and allows Hamlet to finish, as she does not have much of a say in this situation. Furthermore, starting from act 1 scene 3, both Polonius and Laertes tell Ophelia to, “fear it”, from time to time, “it” suggesting her sexual awakening. They want her to keep her to practice abstinence and treat her virginity as a treasure, one of the only things they value about a women.This is the topic of discussion a few time throughout the play and does not accomplish much other than make Ophelia feel bad and degrade her. Ophelia isn’t the only one that is constantly degraded throughout the play, Gertrude also feels the same pain. Such as in act 3 scene 4, Hamlet, her own son, is disrespecting her by first saying, “Go, go, you question with a wicked tongue.”, and goes on to say, “This was your husband. Look you now what follows.”. In this scene Hamlet is just expressing the pure anger he feels towards his mother for marrying Claudius after his father’s death. Gertrude takes all his insults and tells him, “O, speak to me no more! These words like daggers enter in my ears. No more, sweet Hamlet!”, she can not say much as Hamlet has exposed all her shortcomings and therefore Gertrude is victimized in this situation. Throughout the play it is clear the two female characters, Gertrude and Ophelia, are no stranger to common degradation, often sexual, and this is clear evidence of them being victimized throughout the play.

Conclusion: Reflections on Gender Roles and Progress in Society

From the points mentioned above, it is evident that in “Hamlet” by William Shakespeare, Gertrude and Ophelia are completely different characters with different motives but unfortunately, both are mere victims of a patriarchal society. Gertrude and Ophelia are the victims of the society of the time and this is evident throughout the whole play as both female characters show signs of prominent love for at least one other male character in the play, submit to their male characters dominance,, and the prevalent theme of degradation of women throughout the play. The Elizabethan era definitely pushed more free thought than the previous eras, but it was not as progressive as one might think, women were still considered second hand citizens. It is amazing how far we have come. Unfortunately, our society is not perfect and still has various shortcomings such as women making 80.5 cents to every dollar a man makes.

The seventeenth century – and the times before that – were not particularly great times to live in as a woman. Today we live in a mostly patriarchal society where men often have a lot more to say than women, but we also have feminism and feminist theory. Simone de Beauvoir states that “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman” , which suggests the society at large and its arbitrary rules concerning boys and girls, men and women, are what makes certain things feminine and thus, part of the female gender. We have critical engagement with the concept of gender as well, which is described by Judith Butler as being “a performance—that is, constituting the identity it is purported to be. In this sense, gender is always a doing.” . This means that gender is not fixed, but acted out in manners according to social conventions. In earlier times, though, awareness about gender was much less present, and gender roles were kept intact much more strongly than today. However, not everyone always did. While writers were certainly bound by conceptions regarding gender, through the use of voice, they had a certain sense of freedom and an ability to speak their minds implicitly. Voice is term used in this essay to describe not what the author or narrator says, but what is conveyed beyond a regular surface reading of a text. Voice may reveal an author’s attitude or opinion that conflicts with the most literal meaning of a text. In order to explore the concept of gender, gender stereotypes and conventions and the way writers defied this in and around the seventeenth century, the use of voice will be applied to two relevant historical texts: Elizabeth I’s Speech to the Troops at Tilbury and Andrew Marvell’s To His Coy Mistress. The former is a speech which Elizabeth I is thought to have written herself and orated in anticipation of an imminent invasion by the Spanish, which she famously delivered without her guard detail and during which she walked among her armed troops. The latter is a very well-known Carpe Diem poem written some sixty years later, in which a narrator tries to seduce an unknown lady. A surface reading of both texts will be given in order to illustrate how a text might at a glance be interpreted, both now and at the times they were written. A comparative reading, which makes use of the concept of voice for each text, will also begiven for each text to gain insight in what the author might have intended to convey that would be inappropriate, if not impossible, to state overtly.

On a surface level reading, in her Speech to the Troops at Tilbury, Elizabeth I can be considered a strong woman, defiant of the limitations that come with her gender. At the same time, however, she can be found adhering to some patriarchal and societal rules. For instance, Elizabeth states how she, despite being advised to be careful of how she “committed herself to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery” , doesn’t fear the many armed men in front of her, and places her trust in them. Rather than having a proper armed escort, she walks among her troops, after which she states her intent to fight in battle, to “live and die amongst you all” . This shows her defiance towards her gender; it was virtually unheard of that a woman would walk among armed soldiers, let alone fight with them. She also mentions not coming for “recreation and pleasure” – something many might feel is feminine, as the men were the ones warring and defending the country. This distances her further from her role as woman in her society. Her attitude towards her gender continues when she scorns her female body and says how she has “the heart and stomach of a king” . The statement strongly conveys a feeling of empowerment, showing that women, too, are able to fight. The speech, however, ends with Elizabeth stating she will not lead the men after all, but that the Earl of Leicester would do so in her stead , thereby somewhat mitigating the empowering message and adhering to the societal limitation that a woman could not possibly lead an army, and indeed placing a man in charge instead.

A closer reading, more so still than a surface reading, reveals a strong Elizabeth, who not only is strong and defiant, but also very aware of her gender and the limitations that she faces, and as much as she can, defies them. When Elizabeth goes among her troops, she not only is strong and trusting, but also states how she ignored advice about going. Since the advice was given by military advisors, and therefore by men, the voice in this part reveals a woman standing up to a group of patriarchal men. Her defiance against patriarchy persists throughout the speech, when she says she will fight with the soldiers against the Spanish as the only woman among many men. Aside from rising up against patriarchal norms, however, she also displays a keen awareness of the patriarchal structure she lives in, as well as some knowledge of the fact that gender roles are performative and therefore not fixed, even though this was only argued in the 1990s. Elisabeth uses masculine terms throughout the speech, such as “chiefest strength”, “honor”, “valor”, and “blood” , not only to appeal to her audience, but possibly also to convey through voice that she feels more masculine than she is seen as. She mentions her female body before describing herself as having “the heart and stomach of a king” . By stating that she feels unbound to her female body in terms of identity, through voice, she implies she feels that gender is indeed only a performance. Another example of Elizabeth’s awareness concerning the patriarchal structure of the time is that she does not lead the army in the end. While it may seem less empowering than the rest of the speech in a first read, it does show that Elizabeth, stretching the limits of what she as single woman can do, is aware that this line is not something she can cross. In the speech she appoints a renowned leader to command the army. This is somewhat made to fit the socially acceptable norms by citing his virtues and him being the most “noble or worthy subject” , but at the same time, on a voice level, she is reinforcing her authority and rights by at the least choosing herself who is to lead, rather than her advisors making that decision for her.

Andrew Marvell’s To His Coy Mistress is, at least on a surface level, a lot less feminist and empowering than the speech by Elizabeth I, and seemingly reinforces gender roles for both males and females. The poem, written in an iambic tetrameter, is a dramatic monologue in which the male speaker sets out an argument of why his audience, an unknown woman, should make love to him. The narrator can quickly be discerned as being stereotypically masculine, as he makes use of ostentatious language, and lusts after the female. Initially, he addresses his lady’s coyness, which he tries throughout the poem to dispel. To this end, the first stanza is placed in an ideal world, where the narrator says that he “would love you ten years before the Flood, and you should, if you please, refuse till the conversion of the Jews” – that is millennia long. This would allow him to allot time to adore his lady’s physical aspects, spending a hundred years on “thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze; two hundred to adore each breast, but thirty thousand to the rest” . This hyperbole portrays the lust of the narrator, and both sexualises and objectifies the woman, thus keeping both masculine and feminine gender roles in place. The narrator goes on to describe a personified Time as both his and his lady’s villain, describing a “wingèd chariot hurrying near” . This vilification, as well as the allusion to the woman’s vanity by saying that “Thy beauty shall no more be found” and that “worms shall try that long-preserved virginity” , further reinforces gender roles; the man caring primarily about her appearance rather than her personality, and the woman always being concerned with beauty. The use of a pun, saying that the worms shall “your quaint honor turn to dust” – quaint being a derivative of queynte, a synonym for a woman’s privates – further supports the masculine sense of desire. Ultimately, the poem concludes with the narrator outright asking for sexual intercourse, saying they should “like amorous birds of prey” proceed to “tear our pleasures with rough strife” . The phrasing – especially ‘rough strife’ – is very masculine. The fact that the poem’s final stanza is specifically about having sex adds to the stereotype of the narrator as typically masculine, as well as to the objectification of the woman he addresses.

Contrasted to this stereotypical portrayal of gender roles one might read in the poem is an argument that arises from a closer reading that once again incorporates the voice, and a more nuanced – and gender defying – portrayal of both the narrator and the woman in question might be found. While it remains undeniable that the narrator actively lusts after the woman, and badly wishes to have sexual intercourse with her, it is possible to also consider him a caring, loving person who respects the lady he tries to woo. He displays affection towards her, and upturns gender conventions by creating a different world where he pays homage to her in his monologue. He describes his immense devotion to her by stating just how long he would wait by means of a biblical hyperbole, and says his love would be “vaster than empires” . He states how he would spend thousands of years adoring her, which indeed reveals a kindness beyond what might be expected of him as man. This might be read as sexualising the woman. However, through voice, it is implied that the narrator would serve the lady, rather than the other way around as gender roles would command. The presentation of the narrator as lustful continues through the second stanza, but a certain sense of worry and caring are nonetheless present through the voice, although somewhat obscured by the sexual desires on the narrator’s part. He wants her to lose her virginity to him rather than to worms . This is simultaneously driven by desire and longing for her, and by concern for her pride and honour; losing her virginity to a lifeform like worms would do her greater dishonour than having sexual intercourse. In the third stanza, the question to have sex seems mostly to stem from the narrator’s lust, but again, a deeper implied concern is present; the woman’s pleasure is also important, as seen by referring to “our sweetness” and “our pleasures” rather than solely his own. Again, this is not in agreement with traditional views on sex, which placed the man’s pleasure above that of the serving woman who is lusted after. The woman, too, can be seen as stereotype defying, to some degree. She does strongly adhere to the idea that women are expected to be virtuous, and by having her as focus for the narrator’s lust, she is unquestionably sexually objectified. However, by portraying her as unwilling to cooperate with the narrator, she is at the same time in defiance of her gender role, and portrayed as strong enough to withstand the patriarchal idea of women’s primary purpose being in servitude of men. Furthermore, due to the more nuanced view of the woman given through the voice, she is no longer solely a lust object. In the end of the poem, with the implied union between the narrator and the woman, they are placed on equal footing with one another, with both being able to find enjoyment, and both able to “tear our pleasures with rough strife” . In the closing lines of the poem, it is even implied with a biblical allusion that only with both the male and female genders as equals can the sun be moved; Joshua could “make our sun stand still”, being a sole man, while they “will make him run” together.

Both Elizabeth I and Andrew Marvell lived in times where patriarchy was much more present than it is in our current society, but it did not stop them from attempting to identify and defy it. Regardless of their background – Elizabeth being the queen, bound to even more rules than most women, and Marvell being a man who therefore did not experience the masculine oppression as a woman would – they took up their pen and dealt with it. They used voice throughout their texts to bring nuance and a degree of acceptance regarding gender that was far beyond their times. Both authors are still being read and discussed to this day. It can therefore be hoped that their progressive attitudes inspire readers, now and in the future, to keep up a fight for a society where people of all genders can live in harmony and acceptance, unbound by patriarchal notions.

When Pride and Prejudice was being written by Jane Austen in 1811, Europe was amidst the Victorian Era. England was encountering a Pax Britannica, which permitted their economy, government, and populace to increment and extend. The populace increment was expected to a limited extent to the enslavement of women, as women had nothing to do with what number of young people they had. After some time, the sex balance moved, and there were more women than men, enabling men to be of the sort of women they wished to wed. Amid this time, women were conceptualized as sensitive goddesses, put on platforms, and loved. They were romanticized in each feeling of the word. They were spruced up like porcelain dolls. Their characters were made to fit into an awkward social shape, so were their bodies, that made to fit into awkward dress. What is more, the garments were only the foliage of the abuse, let alone the roots. The roots tunneled profound into an earth of misanthropic custom. What’s more, even though Pride and Prejudice is regularly celebrated for its solid female lead, Austen is mercilessly legitimate about the regressive perspectives regarding women at the time. Some portion of her brightness is that her female characters sell out the occasions, comparing Elizabeth with the mistreatment that women acutely felt. The base female characters that mirror the Victorian Era goals, contradict Elizabeth, and it is the subsequent clash that gives novel definition to Austen’s work.

Women had not very many rights. A woman, regardless of what her riches or social standing, was gazeed on always by the administration and by society as a peasant. They were limited from increasing more than a couple of long periods of standard instruction, were prohibited from getting any yet low-paying occupations, were gazeed on with derision on the off chance that they remained single and were compelled to be submissive to men. Every single such confinement and controls were supported by chapel, state, and convention. Concerning familial riches, considerable legacy was not promptly given to women. At the point when a will was given, women generally acquired individual property, which regularly included minor material riches and a house. At the point when a will was not given, men acquired everything as per the arrangement of primogeniture. Just without a male beneficiary were women given significant property. Be that as it may, a solitary lady with riches was still viewed with objection. All things considered, there were not very many choices open to women yet to wed. In Pride and Prejudice, Austen represents this absence of rights in the Bennet family. Mr. Bennet’s property ‘comprised predominantly in a bequest of two thousand per year, which, lamentably for his little girls, was involved, in default of beneficiaries male, on an inaccessible connection’. After the sole man in the house has expired, the women have no rights to the property at all. This effectively powers the little girls into marriage, as Charlotte Lucas submissively protects ‘I ask just an agreeable home’ when she connects with herself to the terrible Mr. Collins. Mrs. Bennet, and any of the unmarried young women, would need to live off the philanthropy of their kin. As it were, this law is a discipline to the mother for not bringing forth a child. The property laws, just as numerous different laws, constantly supported men.

Pride and Prejudice, the dearest and much-investigated British tale composed by Jane Austen and distributed in 1813, has seen a plenty of film, theater, and TV adjustments over the 200 years it has been in print. The tale has been both condemned and adored for the same reason: its female characters. The women of Pride and Prejudice are frequently breaking down as characters whose destinies remark on the circumstance of upper and white-collar class women amid the mid nineteenth century, especially as far as sexual orientation, class, and riches. The plot concerns five little girls who won’t acquire their dad’s home or pay and accordingly should wed well to keep up themselves after his demise. Elizabeth Bennet, in the novel, is viewed as a character who opposes the prohibitive sex jobs of her time by declining to wed for material increase notwithstanding when that is by all accounts her solitary alternative. Amid this time, women were required to wed who their guardians picked and were not given substantive instructions or urged to show their mind. Under the custom of primogeniture that kept up extraordinary domains flawless crosswise over ages by abandoning them to an oldest male relative, couple of women acquired straightforwardly from their fathers. In most cases, any property women claimed would turn into their significant other’s upon marriage. The lives of Elizabeth, Jane, Mary, Georgiana, and Lady Catherine are altogether impacted by these lawful and social standards. The BBC’s 1995 TV series directed by Simon Langton alter their characters and, in this manner, the political proclamations of their activities.

These modifications are much of the time affected by the verifiable minute in which the movies were delivered, what is more, these corrections point to essential contemporary frames of mind towards sexual orientation that assistance us comprehend suppositions about women’ place in the public eye.

The 1995 BBC TV adaptation (featuring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth) is likewise affected by its verifiable minute. New methods of insight surface in this adjustment. Given that this series is almost six hours in length, it can, obviously, go into significantly more profundity than alternate adjustments, and the executives moreover attempted and remain as near the novel as could reasonably be expected. In any case, the series likewise stresses a sexual science among Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy, the most well-known model is when Mr. Darcy jumps into the water when he supposes he is separated from everyone else at Pemberley. Elizabeth at that point keeps running into him splashed and half-dressed while visiting his domain. The more prominent accentuation on sexual want requires worry about Elizabeth’s care about her very own physical magnificence and appearance, something unfamiliar to Elizabeth’s portrayal in the novel. And keeping in mind that her exchange may remain the equivalent, inconspicuous deviations—as straightforward as a gaze in a mirror—change Elizabeth’s portrayal totally.

In a BBC article, Davies (the writer of the BBC adaptation screenplay) states “The obvious way to start,” he says, “would be with a scene set around the breakfast table with Mr. Bennet saying, ‘I see there’s a new family in the area.’ But I didn’t want to do that. Also, I wanted to make the adaptation very pro-Darcy, so I thought, ‘Let’s start with him and Bingley galloping along on their horses – nobody has ever done that before. And that’s the thing that sets the whole story off: Bingley seeing Netherfield Hall and being rich enough to make the snap decision to rent it for the season. Then I thought, ‘Let’s have Elizabeth on a hillside seeing these two tasty blokes galloping along, and something about them makes her skip down the hill’. I can remember writing those first pages and thinking, ‘This is a bit different from the usual Jane Austen adaptation’”.

BBC changes where Elizabeth remains in connection to gender ideologies yet is considerably more inconspicuous by the way it does as such. The arrangement includes one scene in which Jane and Elizabeth talk before bed, while Jane brushes her hair. Elizabeth says, ‘I am resolved, only the most profound love will initiate me into marriage. So, I will end an old servant’. Although she appears to be baffled with this projection, she isn’t following what is anticipated from young women—to wed and make certain to wed well. To wed well, the man must have a specific salary and be a noble man with a decent notoriety. It has nothing to do with affection. Elizabeth rejects this tradition, yet then in the film gazes longingly at Jane, brushing her long light hair. The gaze passes on that she truly begrudges Jane’s excellence and wishes to be taken a gander at by men similarly as her sister. This appears to veer off from what is thought about Elizabeth’s assurance in the novel to be reasonable with men, possibly wedding if she discovered somebody she can regard, and not putting excessively significance on excellence.

‘Gaze’ is a psychoanalytical term brought into famous utilization by Jacques Lacan (2001) to depict the on edge express that accompanies the mindfulness that one can be seen. The mental impact, Lacan contends, is that the subject loses some feeling of independence upon understanding that the person is a noticeable article. This idea is bound with his hypothesis of the mirror organize, in which a youngster experiencing a mirror understands that the individual has an outside appearance. Lacan recommends that this gaze impact can comparatively be created by any possible item, for example, a seat or a TV screen. It is not necessarily the case that the article carries on optically as a mirror; rather it implies that the consciousness of any article can prompt a familiarity with likewise being an item. Before Lacan, Freud in his Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality contends that the gaze is a ―function of desire,one that in this way makes want in the gazer. The two scholars by implication associate the gaze to a human’s craving for delight and sexual satisfaction, and each contends that the association among subject and article is a convoluted one.

According to Freud, the subject spots him or herself at a separation from the article, while Lacan recommends that the item can use a specific dimension of impact through his or her own typification. Be that as it may, the gaze isn’t unequivocally gendered in Freud’s or Lacan’s discourses. Or maybe, it means human desire. Then again, feminist critics has generally unacknowledged this understanding of the gaze as unbiased. Critic Laura Mulvey investigate gaze as a device of women’ enslavement, expecting that it is innately male, and that women are constrained into a uninvolved job as its article. A standout amongst the most questionable nullifications of the presence of a female gaze is maybe Laura Mulvey’s 1975 article Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. In her contention, which analyzes on-screen delineations of women, Mulvey contends that a woman in a man-centric culture remains as a ―signifier for the male other, she is the ―bearer, not producer of meaning, and men can extend their sexual dreams onto her. It is the man, through his gaze, that ―imposes meaning onto a lady. Mulvey accentuates the conventional women’s activist way to deal with the gaze, expressing that ―in a world arranged by sexual unevenness, joy in gazing has been part between dynamic male and uninvolved female, women satisfy a ―exhibitionist role in their associations with men whereby they are ―simultaneously taken a gander at and displayed.

In Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen makes reference to Elizabeth’s eyes with practically unsurprising recurrence, each ten pages. Demonstrating Elizabeth’s look is one of the issues confronting Austen as a writer endeavoring to compose both a female sensual subject and a male object of her heroin’s craving. Thus, the female desire for male characters ―is once in a while explained as uncomplicated (and all the more frequently shows up as transgressive) female-male desire as a female author in the mid nineteenth century, Austen’s capacity to speak to sexuality and female sexual want ―was bound by pre-Victorian impediments of topic which had officially transformed physical sex into a theme for undercover ramifications instead of plain depiction. Nonetheless,the non appearance of a creative dialect through which women can speak to the male body in workmanship as one of the focal obstructions to their portrayal of masculinity. As ―Looking at male bodies was tricky in eighteenth century, men voiced worries over the opportunity of women to look at male bodies. However, that took a leaping change at the time and context when the BBC adaptation incorporated the gaze with a twist, “When women started pinning Colin’s picture on their walls, it was a puzzle and a surprise,” Davies says, “because I just thought it was a funny scene. It was about Darcy being a bloke, diving in his lake on a hot day, not having to be polite – and then he suddenly finds himself in a situation where he does have to be polite. So you have two people having a stilted conversation and politely ignoring the fact that one of them is soaking wet. I never thought it was supposed to be a sexy scene in any way.”

In today’s society, there is a division based on gender roles. Gender roles are what society expects based on the sex of the person. For example, a male is classified as self-confident and aggressive while a female is friendly and emotional. During the late nineteenth century, gender roles were defined. In this time period, the role of women in society was prevented. Many gender stereotypes have been present in the past and are still present even today. In the short story ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’ written by Charlotte Perkins Gilman it displays how a male rule over a female. The Theme of the story is the oppressive nature of gender roles and is it shown throughout the entire story. The female gender is characterized by limited opportunity compared to male.

The short story illustrates what many women faced during the nineteenth century. In the story ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’ Jane is an upper-middle-class woman who is the narrator. The story is told in first-person narration based on her own feelings. The narrator is going through postpartum depression which reveals sadness and emptiness symptoms. John is her husband as well as her physician who thinks he is helping Jane with her condition but is making it worse. Minor characters in the story are Jennie and Mary. Jennie is John’s sister who seems to be a housekeeper in the summer home that the family is staying in. She is Jane’s caretaker as well. Mary is just the nanny who takes care of Jane and John’s baby.

John decided to take his wife to a colonial mansion to rest. He believes it will do her good to relax from the outside world. Jane describes the beautiful gardens of the place and how she has never seen any garden neat. Although she insists that there is “something strange about the house – I can feel it” (23). John ignores Jane’s perspective of the home. The narrator wants to stay in a room downstairs because she likes how the roses from the garden are near the window. However, John insisted on getting a room upstairs. At the time this story happened the only treatment for Jane’s condition was a ‘rest cure’. This treatment is when the patient is placed in a remoteness area from distractions. However, keeping her isolated was actually worse than the condition itself. The physician has forbidden Jane journeys, air, exercise, and any type of work to be done. Jane stated ‘Personally, I believe that congenial work, with excitement and change, would do me good. But what is one to do” (14)? Jane disagrees with her husband about being isolated. She prefers to do work because it will help her, but she cannot override what he says. During these times it was believed that men were the ones with credibility and the opinions could not be challenged. Jane is powerless within her marriage when she says ‘ I sometimes fancy in my condition if I had less opposition and more society and stimulus – but John says the very worst thing I can do is think about my condition, and confess it always makes me feel bad’ (17). Meaning she cannot do anything but maintain silence and keep her thoughts to herself. John has control of Jane and keeping her from expressing her opinions.

John decides that the big airy room upstairs known as a nursery will be the room Jane and John will be staying in. She mentions that the windows are barred for someone like children ‘rings and things’ in the walls. Jane is disturbed by the yellow wallpaper in the room, with a lack of a definite pattern. She describes the color as ‘repellent’ and mentions how the children must have hated it. Jane suggests John about repapering the room they are staying in, but he scoffs at her thought. Later throughout the story, Jane has a journal where she is writing her thoughts down. Her Husband John has forced her to stop writing in it. However, as weeks pass Jane becomes really good at hiding her thoughts in the journal. As said in the “The Ascent of Man” article that men have always hold certain positions or have a say in the relationship than female (Anathawamys and Douglas). In this story, John has a say in his and Jane’s relationship. John makes all the decisions for her because he believes he knows what is right. Jane wants to express her creative thoughts and have a say, but she cannot because she is only a female. There is nothing, she can do about it to change John’s mind. In the late nineteenth century, females were defined as the caretakers, housekeepers’ wives and mothers. Jennie is an example of the type of way a female should act. The female stayed managing households and watching over the children while the father worked in professions and enjoyed the freedom. Women did not want to be at all times inside the home. They encountered opposition from society by wanting to work outside the home.

Jennie is in charge of all the narrator’s duties that she cannot perform. She is in charge of monitoring Jane’s conduct in the absence of John. The narrator sees that she is unable to do social functions as a mother and wife. John will not let Jane spend time with her little boy. During the time a female was expected to be a household wife or be a helpless child and nothing else. Jane realizes there is nothing she can do because all John ever does is discourages her from engaging her imagination in any type of way. In a journal, it talks about how society has placed women in one certain category but should not be like that. A woman should be able to make decisions for their own without having to have someone to oppose. The journal explains that a female should not feel governed by a male just simply because a male has authority (Davidson). Jane is stuck in the room upstairs and personifies the wallpaper as mischievous and vigilant.

As Jane spends most of her time in the room, she begins to trace the patterns of the wall and see the shape of a hidden figure behind the wallpaper. The narrator becomes obsessed with the yellow wallpaper in the bedroom. Weeks pass by and the narrator is getting weak to do any writing in her journal, therefore, becomes fond and later captivated by the wallpaper. Jane is easily tired and cries the majority of the time. Due to her tiredness, she limits her physical activities and is always laying down. For the Fourth of July, John figured if Jane had a little company for that week it would make her feel better. However, Jane could not do anything Jennie was the one in charge of making the guest comfortable. Jane is getting weak as time passes by and explains in the text, “John says if I don’t pick up faster, he shall send to Weir Mitchell” (86). Weir Mitchell is a Philadelphia neurologist-psychologist who introduced the “rest cure” for the nervous disease. Jane says she does not want to go to him because she knows of someone who went and is much worse than her husband. Johns is basically treating Jane that if she does not get better faster, he will have no choice than to send her. John is acting as if she is the one to blame when it really is him.

The narrator requests to go visit friends but John denies the request. He explains to her that it would not be a good idea due to her condition and how weak she is. He says, “her recovery is a matter of will and self-control” (117). He means that she must manage her actions, feelings, and emotions on her own. He tells her having people around will not do it for her. Jane is determined to find a purpose to the pattern on the wallpaper, but she gets tired of just thinking about it. As the narrator continues to watch the wallpaper the shape of a woman is becoming clear within the patterns. Jennie and John try to figure out what is the mystery of the wallpaper. They even become more concern when Jennie spots smudges on her and John’s clothes. Jane is determined and says that nobody shall find out about them but her. As Jane is studying the wallpaper more and more, she begins to get her energy back. She starts eating more and finds life more exciting because there is something to look forward to. Her husband is happy that she is starting to pick back up. She has no intentions in revealing the energy the wallpaper has given her. She does not want to tell him the reason behind it because she is afraid that he will make fun of her.

Jane has one week left to figure out the situation with the wallpaper before she leaves. The week goes on and she finds more characteristics of the wallpaper: yellow odor that is within the house and hangs over her and marks found near the mop-board. She even notices how the patterns move around. Jane sees a creeping woman shaking the front and trying to come out. She sees that same woman creeping in the garden. She then describes her own self creeping the bedroom during daylight and night. The last night of Jane’s stay arrived and John was not home only Jennie and her. Jennie volunteered to sleep with Jane, but she told her that it would be best if she rested alone. However, Jane had a plan and was not going to sleep instead she was going to let the woman inside the moving patterns come out. Jane states “As soon as it was moonlight and that poor thing began to crawl and shake the pattern, I got up and ran to help her” (220). By the time it was morning the yards of yellow wallpaper was torn off to set free the women trapped which is her. In the article by Cruz, he talks about social gender differences and how society and culture create all the gender roles (Cruz). Gender roles change throughout the change of time. Femininity and masculinity are a bit more different than they were back in the ninetieth century.

Jane let the women in the yellow wallpaper escape. Once she tore the paper off, she did not let anyone in the bedroom. Jane wanted to wait on John to get home as she states, “I don’t want to go out, and I don’t want to have anybody come in, till John comes – I want to astonish him” (237). John ended up arriving at the house went upstairs to the bedroom, but the door was locked. He knocked and knocked but Jane would not open the door. Jane tossed the key out the window down by the front steps. She told him to go get the key so he could come into the room. John eventually went to go get the key and opened the bedroom door. When John went in, he was shocked by what she was doing to the wall. He said, “For God’s sake, what are you doing” (264). Jane tells John that she has finally broken out. She explains that there is nothing he can do about it. John ended up fainting at the end of the story. Fainting has common connection femininity because fainting means that someone is not physically strong enough. The fact that John faints means he is the weak one and not her. Fainting represents a winning for her towards the end of the story. John did not think Jane’s outcome would turn out like that he thought the opposite. Jane feels relieved that she is now free to express herself without anyone stopping her. In the article by Brooke, it explains how back in the olden day’s women were not allowed to express or do anything for themselves (Brooke). This article relates to the short story “The Yellow Wallpaper” because that is exactly what John was doing with Jane not letting her be who she wanted to be.

In this story, the women trapped inside the wallpaper not only represent Jane but all of the women. Jane speaks what it is like to be a woman who is not allowed to speak for herself but by her husband. She knows how it feels to be trapped inside of a wall and not finding a way out. Jane tearing down the wallpaper is showing how she is tearing female oppression and getting rid of any societal expectation. Many women in the late nineteenth century dealt with female oppression and felt trapped inside a while. Many were afraid to stand up to the male and went through what Jane had to go through. Unlike Jane, she was determined to find out what was behind the wallpaper. John made it seem as if his reasons to keep her in the room were because of Jane’s illness. Today there are women who are trapped in a wall like Jane was, but time has shifted. Women are allowed rights to show who they are and not be afraid to do it. The movement powered by the women has made in the world today. No male should hold a female under their control.

Literature stages as a form of expression for individual composers. Some works mirrors our modern society, as they continue to shape and teach individuals. Playwright, William Shakespeare, with his 1606 Macbeth, tragedy play as a representation of the 17th century Jacobean era, explores the atrocities within the darker side of humanity. Many of these aspects have transcended time, staying relevant to modern society, due to their similar notions of connected and didactic messages in regard to potential human downfalls and frailty from manipulating and conflicting morals. The representations of unrestrained ambition and guilt, from regicide in Macbeth expresses the severe consequences as a teaching. Also, the challenge of gender roles, portraying masculinity and femininity, conveys the moral issues of the conflictions between these roles. Shakespeare, through sophisticated characterisation, dramatic language and symbols, represents these dogmatic issues within Macbeth, simultaneously interconnecting them with modern society and the Jacobean era, thus Macbeth has transcended time, remaining pertinent to the current audience.

Ambition, mostly thought as a driving sense of success and light, can lead to severe consequences. This exorbitant desire can become unrestrained, as individuals urge for achievement, as a result become corrupted. Through the progressive characterisation of Macbeth from honourable to evil, Shakespeare successfully conveys the dangers of blind ambition to his audience, as due to human nature, majority succumb to temptation. Macbeth’s rise to “Thane of Cawdor”, honoured by King Duncan, “brave Macbeth…he is full so valiant and…his commendations I am fed…it is a banquet to me” metaphorically communicates Macbeth’s initial honourable figure with minimal corruption. After Macbeth, successfully murders Duncan, and repeated acts of sins, he becomes “I am in blood stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o’er”. Through this metaphorical statement, emphasising the visual imagery of Macbeth’s demoralisation, Shakespeare comments upon the effects of unrestrained ambition, as he represents Macbeth’s need to pursue his evil psyche, due to his inability to prevent his desire. To further urge his ambition, the witches manipulate Macbeth, “I bear a charmed life which must not yield to one of woman born”. The use of “woman born” adds a sense of triumph for Macbeth, highlighting his virtually unconquerable state, as everyone has to be born from a woman. Moreover “woman” were seen as weak during the 17th century, reinforcing Macbeth’s dominant stature; simultaneously revealing a sensation of corruption. Ultimately, in a battle with Macduff, he suffers his demise. Through this scene, Shakespeare demonstrates the resultant corruption of Macbeth due to his relentless ambition.

Thus, from Macbeth’s transition from honourable to evilness, Shakespeare powerfully conveys the hazards of vaulting ambition. Though, not everyone yields to desire, one’s inability to exercise restraint during temptation, highly resonates in contemporary times, hence, Macbeth transcends time.

Guilt, an unavoidable feeling of human nature places us in a conscience of being remorseful, especially after committing unnatural acts, diversely affects individuals. Within, Macbeth, Shakespeare clearly demonstrates the suffering consequences behind nature’s inescapable guilt, as a result, Macbeth transcends time. The recurring motif of blood, establishes Macbeth’s guilt, seen in the hyperbolic description “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood clean from my hand making the green one red”. Through the use of visual imagery, “great…ocean, wash this blood from my hand”, Shakespeare powerfully demonstrates Macbeth’s remorse as he attempts to remove the “blood” of Duncan, hence the immoral act committed, even after premeditated murder. In addition, the mythical allusion, “Neptune’s ocean” reveals a god’s purest substance cannot cleanse the guilt from Macbeth, thus conveying the permanent dangers of guilt. The hallucination of Banquo’s ghost, also manifests his guilt. The metaphorical statement, “This is the very painting of your fear” followed by the harsh language, “Avaunt!…and quit my sight!”, exemplifies Macbeth’s aggressiveness to rid his hallucinations, thus communicating he is psychologically unstable and haunted from guilt. This remains transcendent, as due to human nature, individuals become unstable in times of remorse. Lady Macbeth, Macbeth’s counterpart in the regicide, likewise experiences guilt. At the beginning of the play, Act 1, Lady Macbeth is represented as a strong, great lady as seen in her language. Her blank verse speeches, combined with a powerful rhythm of iambic pentameter “Glamis thou art, and Cawdor…shalt be what thou art promised”, accentuates her notion of purpose along with initial assertiveness. However, by Act 5 her authoritative character has deteriorated, evident in her abrupt figures of speech, during her sleepwalking “Out damned spot! Out…I say! One, two…tis timed”. Through truncated language, Shakespeare highlights the destruction of an individual, as Lady Macbeth becomes crippled of thoughts and identity, due to guilt. Therefore, through the exploration of the enduring nature of guilt within Macbeth, Shakespeare effectively communicates the diverse severe consequences it brings. This guilt we encounter remains as a relevant aspect concerning our modern society due to human nature, as a result, Macbeth transcends time.

Gender roles, in society, greatly, determine individuals’ perception of their own life. Our sceptical nature in classifying a man and woman, derives from the conflicting intergenerational roles of masculinity and femininity. Through, Macbeth, Shakespeare explores and challenges traditional gender roles, in relation to masculinity and femininity, and the consequences as a result. Due to human nature, this conflict remains prominent in modern society, thus Macbeth has transcended time. After Macbeth receives the prophecy of becoming king, Lady Macbeth, reads Macbeth’s cowardness in pursuing his ambition. Her masculine character emerges, as a result, “Come you spirits…unsex me here…no compunctious visitings of nature shake my purpose”. Through her soliloquy, Shakespeare reveals, Lady Macbeth’s feminine love for Macbeth, as she asks spirits to extinguish her femininity and imbue her with masculinity required to push Macbeth into committing the deed. Her masculine figure is reinforced, when she resists to Macbeth, “We will proceed no further in this business”, demonstrating her adoption of a dominant male persona, as she manipulates him to do what she wants, contrasting the conventional role of a woman. She eventually loses all the male power, as she is driven to insanity, and eventual suicide. Similarly, Macbeth’s adaption of masculinity from femininity fuels his corruption. The characterisation of a manipulative and mocked Macbeth, with a vicious ambition for king, illustrates his accepting of masculinity full of violence. His fear of Banquo overtaking his throne, “Upon my head they have placed a fruitless crown, and put a barren sceptre in my grip, thence to be wrenched…no son of mine succeeding” leads him to murder. Through this metaphorical statement in conjunction with Macbeth’s characterisation, Shakespeare effectively demonstrates the cruelty and violent nature of his adopted masculinity. Overall, Shakespeare’s distortion of gender roles clearly communicates the conflicting gender identities and norms of masculinity and femininity that are still present in modern society, and the severe consequences it brings, corrupting of individuals. Thus, Macbeth has successfully transcended time, remaining relevant to modern audiences.

Through Macbeth, Shakespeare didactically communicates issues, that played an integral part of the 17th century society, as it distinctly interconnects with modern society. The themes of, unrestrained ambition, guilt and conflicting roles of masculinity and femininity, remains transcendent due to its notions of causing corruption and frailty of individuals, as a result of human nature. Thus, Macbeth transcends time, remaining applicable to a modern audience.