NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... but wonder and grieve that we should appear so despicable in your eyes, as to be thought unworthy to petition or represent our grievances to this honorable House. Have we not an equal interest with the men of this Nation, in those liberties and securities contained in the Petition of Right, and the other good laws of the land? Are any of our lives, limbs, liberties or goods to be taken from us more than from men, but by due process of law and conviction of twelve sworn men of the neighborhood? And can you imagine us to be so sottish or stupid, as not to perceive, or not to be sensible when daily those strong defenses of our peace and welfare are broken down, and trod under foot by force and arbitrary power? (Halsall 1997) Even in 1649, women were concluding that if men and women were both created in the image of God, then men should not find women inferior! In this passage, the well affected women of London (i.
e. , women of a higher class) ask why their goods should be taken from them by men, unless they have due process. Finally, they question if MEN are so stupid that they dont realize that women know this is being done to them. One wonders how women were able to get away with producing a petition like this, given that they were supposed to be kept in the home and doing as they were told; it seems that the attitude of the times gave a tolerance towards the presentation of new ideas that had not been present in society previously. Nevertheless, it was one thing to sign a petition circulated in the streets, and quite another to misbehave in front of ones own husband, or to talk back. We have, so far, discussed the overall treatment of women from the early 1300 s to the 1600 s, and concluded that women were treated as possessions, and not very valued possessions at that. They acquired property only through marriage, and it could be taken away at whim.
Women were to be seen and not heard, and women were cautioned to take care of their husbands needs and to obey him in all things, lest they lose him to women of ill repute who understood his needs (attention, private matters and clean clothing). There is, however, one exception to the women as chattel rule. Once a woman became a widow, she was declared femme sole or lone woman, and was able to utilize power over her household, her assets, her lands, and even businesses that may have been previously held by her husband. She was able to petition the courts and afforded liberties that she had never before been allowed to exercise. Widows were pursued for marriage, sometimes over the heads of younger, more physically attractive young ladies, because a widow had property of her own, and therefore power; wedding a widow caused ones property to increase and ones power base to expand. For the widow, remarriage did not necessary forge an increase in status, and many remained widows throughout the remainder of their lives.
We have established the culture surrounding the treatment of women during the early to mid-medieval times. Let us now examine Shakespeare's treatment of women, and whether or not he should be considered a chauvinist. Clearly, the cultural and social environment of the time kept women as possessions. From a logic point of view, to be considered a chauvinist, Shakespeare would need to espouse that women were inferior to the generally perceived level of functionality of the time.
It is difficult to treat someone as being inferior to possessions! We may question, though, if Shakespeare did not reach the level of being a chauvinist, did he refer to women in the same manner as others of his time? In reality, it appears that Shakespeare actually had a level of respect for women that was uncommon during his time. Consider the feminine heroes of Shakespeare's works: Katherine, Emilia, Olivia, Ophelia, Desdamona, Lavinia, Lady MacBeth, Cleopatra, Tamora, Viola, Juliet, Portia, Beatrice, Cordelia, the Helena's, Paulina, Hermione, and Rosilind. Some were shrews, some were giggly girly-girls, some were evil, and some were strong or noble.
None of them were treated with what this author would consider chauvinism, not even Kate in Taming of the Shrew (as I will discuss later). Shakespeare knew women, and he represented them well in his works. Even Juliet, whom many regard as a victim, was a strong, self-determined woman. She would not marry the man her father chose, she would have Romeo, her lover, over the wishes of her family and friends, or she would die trying. In the end, her dying is of less importance than her struggle for independence, and her assertion of her right to make her own decisions. Portia, Rosalind, and Viola portray themselves as men in order to achieve their goals.
Is Shakespeare a chauvinist or misogynist for portraying the women in this way? I believe that he presents them as strong women who will prevail regardless of the steps they need to take to do so. Further, one wonders if there is an underlying message here, that women are capable of deceiving and outwitting men without looking back. rather than making Shakespeare a chauvinist, this would make him a very observant gentleman! While some authors feel that women who show male traits are considered threatening (and therefore must be disguised to be listened to), this author believes that Shakespeare is merely pointing out that it is a sad state of affairs in society when a woman must do this. In other words, Shakespeare is using the duplicity to point out the ridiculousness of women feeling compelled to act in this manner, rather than implying that women are inferior by their duplicity.
Consider that in King Lear, Cordelia leads an army. This is not the ranting of a chauvinistic man! Cordelia neither dresses as a male or acts as a horrid monster. She mere does what needs to be done. In the same manner, Helena, who is by all accounts a coward or weak lass, manages to get up the courage to chase her love through the woods in the night in A Midsummer Nights Dream.
Beatrice threatens to eat Claudio's heart out in public in Much Ado About Nothing. Helena traps Bertram into marriage in Alls Well that Ends well, and she does it by using her wits and exhibiting skill as a doctor (a male profession in those days). In a Winters Tale, Paulina calls the King crazy, surely an act of bravery. Even the deaths of the tragic Tamora and Lavinia can be seen as a caution to women, to be strong and fight back, rather than as an adage that women get what they deserve. Ophelia may well be one of the stars of Shakespeare's repertoire.
She awakens sexually, goes mad, and sings bawdy songs in front of the King and Queen, surely an act that a woman would never do, mad or not. Ophelia has committed a startlingly male act, singing of cocks to the Queen. Again, Shakespeare presents Ophelia in such a manner that one can not help but comment what a waste of womanhood, and this is precisely the reaction that I believe the Bard was aiming for. Like the Cleopatra of history, Shakespeare's Cleo was a handful. She had a mouth worth of any man and believed in paying to get results, scarcely the act of a mere woman. Hermione is given a speech worthy of any male hero; and Lady Macbeth may have killed herself when her conscience kicked in, but look at what she accomplished before polished womanhood won over!
The alert reader will note that the heroine of The Taming of the Shrew, Kate, has not been discussed as of yet. I have, indeed, left the best for last. Beyond any shadow of a doubt, Kate (or Katherine) was a spirited, highly strung, sarcastic, intelligent woman who resented men and their powers over women. No one who has read the play or seen the movie could possibly surmise otherwise. Throughout her life, Kate has been told that she needs to resemble Bianca more, be a kindled, gentler woman. Is Kate cowed by a bully?
Does Petruchio mistreat her, causing her to lose her spirit? Or does Kate merely give Petruchio his comeuppance? She is bound and determined to be married, rather than be an old Maid in her fathers home; she marries Petruchio despite his outlandish clothing at the wedding. She marries him despite the fact that he curses the priest, and throughout the course of the play she sticks with him despite all manner of ill treatment on his part. One might almost reach the conclusion that Petruchio was attempting to make people even more sympathetic to his cause by always speaking kindly and gently to Kate (who had the reputation of a real shrew), but by letting the meaning of his words belay their gentle tone. Is it possible, I question, that Kates big speech at the end of the play is delivered in total gentle sarcasm, much as Petruchio's speech has been delivered throughout the play?
Has Kate indeed won the battle by taming Petruchio while HE believes he tamed her? Remember that in the beginning, Petruchio was a gold-digger, and Kate needed to get married. Because of her tongue, the gold-digger was the only one who would have her. By his garb at the wedding we may believe that even he had second thoughts; he was late, came dressed as a clown, and did everything humanly possible to escape from this deal he cut. By the end of the plan, he is thoroughly tamed!
Shakespeare was no chauvinist. He was, however, a student of human nature, and a firm believer that women are humans. Bibliography: Halsall, P. (1996). Medieval Sourcebook: The Goodman of Paris, 1392 / 4. "The Goodman of Paris" translated by Eileen Power in The Goodman of Paris, (London: Routledge, 1928), and reprinted in Richard M. Golden and Thomas Kuehn, eds. , Western Societies: Primary Sources in Social History, Vol I, (New York: St Martins, 1993).
This text is indicated as being without copyright on p. 330 of the Golden/Kuehn book. This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history. Halsall, P. (1997). Modern History Sourcebook: Radical Women During the English Revolution. From J.
O'Faolain and L Martines, Not in God's Image (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), pp. 266 - 267. Retrieved 30 Apr 2006 from web Palmer, R. (1188). Glanville: Women and the Law. IV. Women and the Law; Rules of Law. IV.
A. Women and the Law: Dower. Retrieved 30 Apr 2006 from web
Free research essays on topics related to: apr 2006, due process, treatment of women, lady macbeth, taming of the shrew
Research essay sample on Shakespeare The Chauvinist Part 2
