21 July 2011
Women's Role
As I was reading the book, I really took an interest in the role women play. Honestly, I found that they don't play much of a role at all. It seems to me that the women are no more than trophies, to be flaunted and won. The only strong woman I really identified in the novel is Mrs. Joe. She runs her household with a firm hand and refuses to take anything from anyone. Aside from her, women are mostly seen as objects. In the novel, Herbert even refers to his future bride Clara as a child, as if she needs someone there to take care of her or she won't survive. Reading that made me realize how far women and feminism have come and it made me so glad we don't live in a society like this anymore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Yeah I noticed this too. Women never played a very strong role or barely any role at all. The only woman who did actually have a role ending up becoming brain-dead. And the other two main women in the novel (besides Biddy) were evil or insane or bizarre. Miss H. was pretty crazy and she raised Estella that way too. I just found it strange.
I don't know if I can say the same thing about women completely. I don't think that they were depicted as trophies necessarily; however, I can't say that I disagree with both you, Danielle or Olivia. I think that Dickens does seem to understand that women are more than just trophies and at least makes Estella a dynamic character. I feels as though if Estella were in a different setting she could be a very independent woman, so on that stance I would agree. So I am slightly torn on this subject, I both commend and criticize Dickens for allowing women to play a substantial role. But I will say that I do criticize the time period for having such bias, which crushed the possibilities many women held for society, such as Estella and her unique personality.
To be honest, I was surprised to see a character like Mrs. Joe. In that time period women were placed behind men, yet she abused her men. It also perturbed me little that Dickens did not name her.
The back of my copy said that this book shows Dickens' negative views of Victorian Society, and I definitely see your point that women didn't have any significance. I think he used Mrs. Joe as a special case, to really stress Joe's fear of hurting women, which developed from watching the relationship of his parents.
I have to Disagree with Danielle and Oliva and side more with Steph. Although characters such as Biddy played seemingly insignificant roles in the novel, the majority of women in the novel left a tremendous impact on the reader.
Take Mrs. Joe for example. She brought Pip "up by hand" and exerted authority over her husband by abusing him. She was recognized as a force to be reckoned with, and revered by the surrounding community for bringing Pip up in the way she did. Next, Miss Havisham unleashed all kinds of mischief into Pip's life. She threw the huge road bump of the man-hating Estella into his life as well as causing him to become an apprentice. Lastly, Estella played the largest role in the novel. She single handedly ruined Pip's love life. She destroyed any chance of other possible romances for him. Pip was wholeheartedly consumed with Estella.
To me it is very clear that Dickens distinctly recognizes women do possess some measure of power within society. However as Meghann said, he does not name all of his women characters. Therefore, I conclude that Dickens pushes for women to have more important roles in society, however he still values men above women as is the stereotype of the time period and Victorian society.
Alright, so I'm kinda on the fence about all of this. Yes, I think that Dickens used women to play a very significant role in the novel. However, every impact on the novel that Ashely describes is noticably negative. Pip is abused by Mrs. Joe, sentenced to heartbreak by Miss Havisham, and is heartbroken by Estella. Thus, while women have the ability to play important roles, these roles are neither desired nor positive and it would be much more beneficial to their victims if they were never carried out in the first place. So I suppose I'm leaning toward the side of the fence that suggests that Dickens views women as inferior, not because they are unable to be significant, but because their significance is largely negative.
#lovehurts
I did not see the powerless image in the women of the novel. Granted, there were a few indications of it, but I believe they were just an effect of the time period. I found Estella to be an extremely empowered female character. Dickens portrayed her as widely intelligent, by indicating her avoidance of Pip was because she knew that she was supposed to break his heart. I perceived her lack of specific malice as being an act of generosity as well as strength. She rebelled against the purpose she was raised for, and slowly overturned the force holding her, Miss Havisham. As a person, that required an extremely strong will. As a female character written as early as this was, it was unheard of.
We also have to look at the time period here. The book was written in the early 1860's where women were barely even classified as citizens. Dickens wrote as it was in his time. He probably had never witnessed a strong woman role in society, rather than women who lived on their own without the support of a man. Considering the age of the book, I believe that he portrayed women well. Most women most likley did not have a name for themselves. Why should he acknowledge them fully if he was simply telling a story from his time?
Like someone else has said, I don't really see the powerlessness of women. Obviously, given the time period, they were a little restricted, but Dickens certainly did not have hardly any role. I even found Clara to be strong-after all, she took care of her father by herself, and for that reason was clearly not a trophy to be given like women were in that time. And like someone else said, Estella too, was strong.
Not gonna lie, I was initially agreeing with you. But then I read the rest of the comments and now I feel that perhaps the powerlessness served to further accentuate the defiance in some of the women. Dickens had to set the norm somehow. By creating that women-are-trophies vibe in the book the actions of characters such as Estella and Mrs. Joe became a big deal to the reader. Or at least a bigger deal than they would have been. So yes, I totally agree that women were belittled and valued purely for status back in the day. Yet I don't feel that their mentalities allowed male dominance to be so absolute. Does that make sense?
Post a Comment