So instead they try to explain and understand Santiago Nasar's death as an unavoidable force driven by a divine nature. It was the only consolation the narrator could draw from Santiago Nasar missing the anonymous note under the door that warned him of the plot against his life. Or the door that was open in the rear of the house that the protagonist could have fled to during the attack he faced from the Vicario brothers. The role of fate is the classic perpetrator just by example: "There had never been a death more foretold," the narrator tells us (p.46). To Marquez, fate seemed to be dominating the life and ultimate death of Santiago Nasar.
Chronicle of a Death Foretold In Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the narrator tells us that two people were responsible for the death of Santiago Nasar, however the narrator is wrong. Ignorance killed Santiago Nasar. There are three specific townsfolk responsible for the murder; Leandro Pornoy, Divina Flor, and Colonel Lazaro Aponte. Each of these three people had an equal opportunity to stop the murder; however each person’s ignorance caused them to fail in their duty as a fellow citizen. It was their duty after they heard of the Vicario brothers’ plot to kill Santiago Nasar to do whatever was necessary to stop the murder; however none of them took enough initiative to prevent the murder from happening.
However, the novella is a foreshadowing of events that led up to the death of Santiago Nasar by the Vicario brothers. Strangely, he is being killed for the accusation Angela Vicario made for taking her virginity. The “Chronicles of a Death Foretold,” reveals themes such as honor, tradition and death. Throughout the reading of the novella honor was portrayed in many instances. Strangely, the actions taken to prove honor was never questioned by characters in the novella.
The Wife of Bath thought that all women needed to be the controlling factors in marriage. That is how she believed she would gain her husbands’ money. She claimed that if women can’t marry for money, they must marry for sex, for those are the only two things that really matter. Women must have control of their husbands, according to the Wife, and she is proud of the fact that she governed her husbands. If she had to put them in their place, she would make her husbands feel guilty, even if they had nothing to feel guilty about.
Women in the Romantic Era were a long way from being treated as equals; they were expected by society to find a husband, become a typical housewife, and a good mother. So what happens when women get tired of being treated horribly and try to fight back towards getting men to treat them as an equal? Both Mary Robinson’s, “The Poor Singing Dame” and Anna Barbauld’s “The Rights of Women” show great examples of how women in the Romantic Era were disrespected and degraded by men, whereas all they wanted was to be treated with respect and dignity. Females were harassed for doing the smallest thing wrong or for doing something that simply made a male angry. For example, in “the Great Singing Dame” the happy poor woman gets thrown in jail for simply
This reciprocally form of love is labeled ‘authentic love’. Nonetheless De Beauvoir mentions that women are “ trapped in the feminine universe” (p. 708) where the women accept traditional destinies of getting an education, married, and having children. On the other hand, the man can never be “a man in love” as De Beauvoir puts it. Although it may seem difficult to achieve, authentic love is possible. In this paper, I will use De Beauvoir’s arguments to further expand on what authentic love.
This shows that Lusanna was having an extra marital after behind her husband’s back, which would bring terrible shame to herself and her family name. Why then would she act in this manner? Was she trying to challenge the fact that men were allowed to have concubines and mistresses, but women were not? Another aspect of this lies in the consummation of marriage. It was a woman that is supposed to endure in her chastity until she and her future husband effectuated the marriage.
Does she do so in favor of a mutually blissful marriage or to conform to patriarchal ideals? Perhaps Chaucer and the Wife of Bath are suggesting that male rehabilitation and female dominance are only necessary up to a point. Once the knight and the hag achieve a shared understanding they are able to coexist. Or perhaps in the very end both Chaucer and the Wife of Bath acknowledge that this kind of understanding is sheer fantasy and the Wife cruses the couple for good luck and protection. With both these valid possibilities, the tale presents a mixed message about the place of feminism and female authority.
However, later, in her "Tale" the Wife of Bath presents another opinion - women wish to have emotional power over their husbands as well. The fact that the hag is able to decide for herself whether to turn into a beautiful wife or to remain in her present state, manifests her power over the husband. It is up to her whether to make the knight the happiest men on earth or to make him miserable for as long as she lives:
A recent example of this is Meghan Trainor’s new song, Dear Future Husband(4). In the song, Trainor advocates a relationship in which the husband and wife are not equal, but are instead one based on antiquated, heteronormative gender roles. In her song she sings that relationships should include chivalry, which degrades women of their full potential and creates a society containing social inequality. Trainors narrative also explains that her main contribution to the relationship is sex- which she states can be restricted if he does not uphold her expectations, thus making women nothing more than sexual objects to men making them susceptible to exploitation, and it promotes a rape culture. Dear Future Husband also explains that women are to aspire to marriage.