Bernau’s chapter states that the Wife of Bath’s Prologue entails “the same source being used to argue strikingly different perspectives.” The chapter ends by stating, “…medieval instances also reveal how such views [of antifeminism] were not only replicated and accepted, but also manipulated, mocked, undermined, and critiqued in their own time.” Do you think the Prologue contains both a challenge to misogynistic tropes while participating in misogynism or is one perspective stronger than the other?
Medieval Feminism
ENGL 361 and WGST 322 | Spring 2020 | Dr. Myra Seaman
When discussing a female’s sexual liberation, the poem does at first seem to challenge misogynistic tropes associated with a religious ideal of purity and virginity. With examples such as Abraham and Jacob being discussed in terms of having “more than two wives” (line 57), the poem begins to acknowledge gender-based double standards in religion. However, strong feminist statments like these seem to lose some of their effect as a woman’s sexuality shifts to be discussed in relation to men. Statements such as “My husband shall have it…When it pleases him” (lines 152-153) suggest that freely expressed sexuality is less about a woman’s ability to choose and to be equal to man. Instead, it is about the benefit of sexuality in general–especially in terms of pleasing men. This pleasure revolves around men as they are portrayed as the superior gender, whereas women are portrayed as gossips, emotional, less reasonable, and deceitful through the stories of her marriages.
As Madison shows, the poem certainly both challenges and puts for misogynistic ideals. A particular section that I think challenges patriarchal norms is when the narrator is discussing that sex is not displeasing to God and she says “Of procreation, in which we do not displease God./Why else should men set in their books/That man shall pay to his wife her debt?/Now with what should he make his payment,/ If he did not use his blessed instrument?” (line 129-132). Here, it seems she essentially says that men pay women in sex and apparently is owed to them, a notion that is usually reversed. Something, though, that I thought was keeping in line with misogynistic norms is when she is telling of her fifth husband to whom she gave ” all the land and property/That ever was given to me before then” and he hit her in the ear so hard that she went deaf (line 630-631). However, she says that of all her husbands, she “loved him best,” showing she didn’t act against his abuse and accepted it (line 513).
Overall, Wife of Bath’s Prologue does indeed portray strikingly different perspectives that can both been seen as feminist and misogynistic. The reader may at first see much of what the wife says to be pro-feminist, as she she freely talks about her sexuality in terms of wanting sex and using it to her advantage with her husbands, but this also indicates many examples of misogyny that Bernau describes in the article “Medieval Antifeminism.” For example, Bernau used a quote that sums up the idea of women in medieval society: “Woman the unhappy source, evil root, and corrupt offshoot, who brings to birth every sort of outrage throughout the world.” In previous readings such as Roman de Silence, Lanval, and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, women are perceived as being deceitful, loveless, lustful, liars. These medieval ideas of women are thus shown through the narrator who admits to using her husband in order to get what she wants. She even states that, “… can there no man / swear and life, as a woman can.” (line 227). These acts seem to align with the antifeminist views that Bernau speaks about. But, the wife does denounce misogynistic statements made by men that seem to run as truth within society, such as common contradictions about women. For example, while men say it’s bad to marry a poor woman, it’s equally as bad as marrying a rich woman due to her being snobby. In many instances, she points out the unfairness woman often face while also following the antifeminist tropes popular within medieval society.
I believe that the Wife of Bath’s prologue is a feminist text, particularly in the context of its time. We must take this context into consideration, as the religious traditions and beliefs of the time have great influence over the Wife’s perspective.
I think this prologue reveals itself to be feminist and challenges misogynistic belief through the Wife’s apparent education (specific knowledge of biblical scripture, possibly an indication of literacy), her expressed command over her various husbands, her ability to speak on the respective goodness or badness of her husbands, her exigence and active decision making in selecting her husbands. She also is very open about her sex life, viewing it not as a necessary service or moral obligation to her husbands, but instead an exchange of goods. Within this mindset, the Wife expects returns, asserting her position as an equal.
I think the discussion of men’s complaints about women is especially insightful. The Wife essentially reasons that men approve no woman. If she’s beautiful, she’ll attract too many lovers, if she’s ugly, she’ll be too desperate. This certainly challenges the idea of medieval antifeminism, where men in texts make negative or derogatory blanket statements about women as a social group.
I agree with Rachel, in that the wife of bath’s prologue is a feminist text. While it may not be completely “politically correct” in modern context, she goes out of her way to reclaim her power as an individual. Is this not the goal of feminism? She uses her sexuality, which may be all she was able to use socially, to empower herself and influence her husbands because they likely wouldn’t have listened to her otherwise. Now, I will also recognize that this text does participate in misogyny. How can it not when it is written and read in this context? The wife recognizes that her husband is her leader, and although she defies this, it is still important to recognize the significance of her perspective.
I agree with my other classmates in that Wife of Bath’s Prologue portrays a multitude of views on women. There is, as mentioned before, quite a few lines devoted to empowering a woman’s right to her own sexuality and defending the idea that if a man is not expected to be a chaste virgin with only one lover, neither should a woman.
There is also a section that describes the various roles women are placed into (ugly, beautiful, rich, poor, etc) and what it would mean for them as a wife. Rich women are described as having terrible moods and ugly women are described as pouncing on any man who would have them like a dog. It is constantly emphasized how men would suffer in these relationships, however, the author also acknowledges how there will always be men who want these women.
Because of this, it’s difficult and even inaccurate to say that the Prologue displays a strictly feminist or antifeminist depiction of women. I would agree with the Bernau reading that these writings can both display misogynistic tropes, while also poking holes in them.