Recently, there has been controversy surrounding the topic of feminism in the media world. The definition of what it means to be feminist is blurring as people add their opinions to the list. Even the word ‘feminism’ has a growing cloud of bad connotation as a result. For those who are reading this now, I’m not going to dive into the thick of what constitutes feminism. You can find that on another blog somewhere.
Instead, I find it pertinent that we read the Wife of Bath’s prologue and tale now. She is a prime example of an independent woman, classified as feminist. Some may say she comes off too strong, too opinionated and arrogant. But I see that as her knowing what she wants, how to get it and be content with her life. Who said she wasn't happy living way she does?
As far as I can tell, she likes to choose whom she marries and how to conduct herself. She is proud, confident and cunning. She wields her promiscuity deftly, knowing its power and reigning it in at the appropriate times. She may not be the most beautiful belle of the ball or the fairest, but this wife of Bath doesn't need those attributes to survive. She is an ultra-feminist.
Even though I like her, I also pity the wife of Bath. I see her as another outcast character because people don’t know how to react around her. She seems to have this judgmental barrier, guarding anyone from understanding who she is, why she acts in such a manner and the underlying reason for her personality. She isn't given a chance to correct any wrong impressions or rid people of their judgments.
I think this is a main reason she gives such a long prologue. For the first time, she is given the chance to explain her life without anyone interrupting. This storytelling bleeds into her tale of the knight at King Arthur’s court, sent to learn what all women desire. It’s appropriate considering the wife of Bath was trying to enforce it in her prologue, this idea of domination over their husband or lover (ll. 1038-1041).
It is a simple lesson she wishes men everywhere would know and accept. If they let their wives hold power over them in matters, they would be eternally happy. To people in the medieval times, this was an implausible thought. Men were the leaders of the family and women held little power. Once again, Chaucer contrasts inner desire with reality.
Great thoughts, Kassy. Something's up with your font formatting though - you might want to edit your post and make your text size uniform to make it easier to read! Thanks! ;-)
ReplyDeleteLast semester I took a class called Philosophical Issues in Feminism. Kassy, the points that you made in your post are exactly what we covered in that class. I agree with you that the wife of Bath is an ultra-feminist. She does not seem to be the type of person to take crap from anyone and if she has problem with something or someone *cough cough her husbands cough cough* she will make it known. I think one of the best examples of this in the wife of Bath's prologue was when she took the book her husband was reading and rips a page out of it (ll.641). She is standing up for herself against her husband by doing something she knows will upset him, in order to get him to stop reading which he knows upsets her. The book that the wife of Bath's fifth husband read aloud is intended to belittle her, she knows this and it upsets her enough for her to do something about it, I believe that sets her apart from other women of her day and can be used as evidence that the wife of Bath was a feminist.
ReplyDeleteWhat really is power over someone? Even in the conclusion, the witch never actually has "power" over her husband. This isn't one of them having power over the other, The Wife of Bath tells us in the end that the marriage ending in "happily ever after" is when one gives up "power" to do what is best for each other, to give something up to make the other happy. While the focus here is on the Husband, the wife too gives up power to do what's best.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that the Wife of Bath is a feminist, I do not see enough evidence to classify her as an ultra-feminist. She is a strong independent person, however, she is not campaigning for complete equal rights. She still believes in the separate spheres of influence that would be popular until the late 1800s.