Through analyzing Hamlet’s word choice, imagery, and tone it will be proven that his desexualiztion of his mother is the reason why he cannot love but only lust over Ophelia. Marrying Claudius, the king’s brother, is in fact the most treacherous sin in Hamlet’s eyes. This sin “makes marriage vows as false as dicers ' oaths,” and by the way these words are written it could be assumed that his tone expresses distrust of the words of gamblers (scene 3.4). Hamlet desexualizes his mother as a way to in turn desexualize all women and make him sexually invulnerable to pain, regret, and unfaithfulness that is presumably caused by all women. Inevitable Hamlet suppresses his sexual desires for Ophelia because there is no reason to trust women when Gertude had easily broken her vows to her husband as easily as she said
All together, these factors describe the imprisonment of women in the domestic sphere and gilded cage that they were expected to exist in and the control held over them by men. Early on we the readers come to find that John is the epitome of a dominating spouse. He treats his wife as an inferior and as though she is nothing more than an object in their marriage, “John laughs at me, of course, but one expects that in marriage” (Gilman 1). In John’s mind his wife’s ideas and thoughts aren’t important enough to be taken seriously, and thus never gives her a second thought when she begins to mention her thoughts on the house and her deteriorating mental state. It is also clear from this statement that John’s wife brushes off his laughter because it is what is expected in society.
The Doll’s House questions gender roles, specifically motherhood. Marriage to Torvald was no different than living with a stranger. By walking out of her relationship for her own liberty, Nora sends a message that the rights of a woman are often wronged, and women should not be expected to conform to society’s expectation of duty. The Father questions patriarchy by illustrating the struggle between husband and wife. In an exaggerated approach, the play reveals that both husband and wife are equally vital in a marriage.
Egeus's reaction to Hermia’s behavior demonstrates the expectations daughters at the time were given: they were to be subordinate to their fathers, or any other authoritative male figures without question. Yet, Hermia still chooses to disobey her father by refusing to marry Demetrius. Egeus, expecting her to not question the order, is shocked when she expresses her own opinions on the situation. Appalled by her defiant behavior, Egeus turns to Theseus for help. He tells the duke that Lysander is the one responsible for Hermia’s disobedience saying, “With cunning heart thou has filch’d my daughter’s heart; / Turned her obedience, which is due to me, / To stubborn harshness … As she is mine I may dispose of her; / Which shall be either to this gentleman/ Or to her death” (Shakespeare I.i.37-45).
“During these time periods if men or women switched these traits it was known to be unacceptable and inappropriate” (McKee 33). The role of the wife in Ibsen’s “A Doll House” shows how the female tried to take dominant trait and it backfired on her. Nora also held a secret from her husband, due to the anger it would cause. Which fits the masculinity description as being
The way both characters finally attain freedom and defeat their oppressor is by directly defying them, by going against established cultural and gender roles. Incidentally the feminist sentiment that naturally accompanies this is purposeful, and is used by the authors to show how women need to be powerful in order to attain what they want in a male dominated society. The final ways they conquer their oppressors is by freeing themselves symbolically and becoming outsiders that are away from the all too unjust world they knew. In both works the protagonists act in opposition to the established cultural roles society has dealt them. In ancient Greek society, women were controlled by their father before they were married, and controlled by their spouse once they were married; Medea opposes this convention and ultimately succeeds in overthrowing it.
While Property reveals the corrupting and dehumanizing power of ownership on those who own, it also explores the stratification of power between femininity and masculinity. The novel makes readers reflect on the post-slavery constructions of gender and how the patriarchal systems still stands in effect today. Manon is an unsympathetic heroine and her moral blindness and casual cruelty makes it hard to connect with her. However, she is a product of her society, and without hurting others to get power, she would be forced into submissiveness. The stand she takes against the patriarchal order should be commended, but the steps she must take to reach her goal are repulsive.
The microcosm that exists in the play reveals unexaggeratedly the true extent of male dominance within society, one that was on the verge of change. The male elite attempted to suppress these changes and one of them that directly conflicted with the play was the Lord Chamberlain’s decision to ban the play on the grounds of its frank discussion and portrayal of prostitution. Shaw has carefully crafted each character within the play, so that each one offers a representation of the changes he felt relevant. Shaw claimed that no respectable women who could earn a decent wage would become whores and no woman would marry for money if she could marry for love. Mrs. Warren epitomises this very idea; Why shouldn’t I have done it?
This major aspect never receives any attention from either Lady Bracknell or Victorian society due to a cultural taboo. Wilde uses her views on marriage to illustrate the fundamental perversion of the Victorian matrimonial ideal since it uses marriage as a social construct while ignoring the sexual construct. Lady Bracknell, as a character, acts as a caricature of Victorian society and morality, and when her views aspects of gender relations and matrimonial relations receive inspection, her true significance appears. Wilde intends to evoke laughter through her extremely strict and antiquated morals, but at a deeper level, he seeks to attack any system of rigid morals that often plague societies.
Jankowski points out that instead of using her body’s potential for power, the Duchess attempts to divorce her natural body from her political body, and in turn separates her public and private lives. By keeping her second marriage and children private, she creates a triple position as wife, mother, and ruler, and therefore becomes a threatening figure, especially to her brother Ferdinand who sees her private life as unacceptable and over sexual. Jankowski explores the Duchess’ journey from ruler, to wife and mother, to eventually a suffering martyr. She concludes that even though the Duchess refuses to unite her body natural and her body politic, the nature of her marriage is revolutionary and challenges social custom and foregrounds her character in its subversive ideology with great power (244). This source seems highly credible due to its extensive use of quoted material and consideration of historical context.