Of Mice And Men Curley's Wife A Feminist

Kelly may be considered a feminist because of his clever manipulation of the female characters in DNA. The initial portrayal of these women instantly causes the audience to view them with contempt. A prime example of this is the way Leah is presented as an attention seeking female who results to violence when all else fails. However later on in the play, we are shown how she has adopted this violent nature as a result of her incapability to deal with the situation in any other way. She has become prone to violence and can no longer control her actions. The quote “What would you do if I killed myself”, the repetition of the rhetorical question shows her insecurity, lack of confidence and the constant need to be reassured. This emphasises this

fact, making us, as the audience, regret our preliminary thoughts about Leah. This highlights Kelly’s hidden intentions to give the audience a chance to consider how they view people, how quick we all are to assume things about people based on minimal evidence. Likewise, in Of Mice and Men, Steinbeck portrays Curley’s Wife as a manipulative and conceited female, who would do anything for attention.

At first, the reader is exposed to her flaws, all the things that cause her to be disliked by the men in the ranch. She is referred to with words such as ‘bitch’ and ‘tart’ before she’s introduced to the audience, which instantly causes the reader to attach negative connotations to her character. These are also aggressive and sexist terms used to describe Curley’s Wife who has little power. Conversely, in her final death scene, she is described as ‘pretty’ and ‘simple’ making the reader feel a sense of sympathy towards her and realise her actions as nothing more than desperate pleas for attention. The use of the adjectives ‘pretty’ and ‘simple’ suggest that Curley’s Wife is simply human. Like the men on the ranch; she’s pure and quite innocent. Steinbeck can be seen as a feminist as his intentions were very different from what we as readers might have thought. A modern reader might believe that Steinbeck was a misogynist, however his intentions were to make us emphasise with this woman who had such a difficult life due to the context and sex, and to make us look at these kind of women

differently. The description of Curley’s Wife, she’s not dressed like a ‘tart’, shows she’s dressed like someone who takes pride in her appearance. As oppose to wearing revealing clothing, she’s wearing modest clothing that flatters her. Indeed she’s wearing “rouged lips” and “red mules” heels, but that shouldn’t reduce her to a tart. Curley’s Wife is called a tart by the rest of the men on the ranch and this is the way they view her, so immediately the reader has a negative view of her also. Perhaps she’s someone who wants to look her best and wants to emulate the movie stars that she once aspired to be. It is unfair that the men in the ranch judge her in this way, when actually the movies stars she was trying to imitate were incredibly famous at that time and men would’ve lusted after them; but suddenly, because she’s in the real world and she’s a married woman, who is trying to come across as being attractive by dressing herself up, she’s seen in a different way.
Both Steinbeck and Kelly explore the position of women in a male dominated society and the ways in which they’re treated because of their gender. Steinbeck uses the character of Curley’s Wife to depict life as a woman in the patriarchal society in the 1930s by presenting her as a something owned by Curley. His refusal to grant Curley’s Wife a name is a constant reminder that she is the property of someone else; hence why she was seen as danger and trouble because she was on a ranch full of men who felt that if they touched something that wasn’t theirs, they would get in trouble. By Steinbeck growing up in patriarchal society affecting his views towards women, he uses derogatory language to dehumanise Curley’s Wife from the outset until her death. By refusing to portray Curley’s Wife as an object, by not giving her a name, can show how she was deprived of any power she would’ve had, taking away her name, as if giving her a name would give her power; as if recognising her as a proper person and her significance would give her power over them. This is shown through Curley’s Wife’s repeated questions for example ‘why can’t I talk to you’. This is a question which shows her general curiosity; conversely, it shows that she doesn’t understand why she can’t talk to anybody which showing her naivety and her unawareness of her status in society. Her powerlessness and distress can be a way of Steinbeck highlighting how women in America felt at the time with their limited rights and freedoms in comparison to men.
Kelly and Steinbeck both present women who at times take on male characteristics in order to be accepted. Cathy is presented as a young woman who goes along with peer pressure of the gang, whereas Leah resists it and Cathy takes on male characteristics. This can be compared to how Curley’s Wife treats Crooks and how women are presented as violent to prove that not just men can are violent to challenge the traditional view of women, as she was verbally violent towards him because it’s the only way she can get power, this is shown in the scene where she says to crooks ‘I’ll get you strung up on a tree’. This can be thought to be manly as women in the 1930s were expected to be nothing more than housewives and were seen as obsessions. It was men who would normally be violent and aggressive to one. Whereas Cathy tries to get power because she’s desperate for respect, which she wouldn’t get if she was like Leah.
Both Kelly and Steinbeck show how female characters were pressurised into doing things not expected of them.

Curley’s Wife lacks having a name can be compared to the idea of Leah not being given recognition of what she says, and the fact that Phil doesn’t listen to her robs her words of their power. If someone isn’t hearing what you’re saying, then it’s almost not worth your while saying it. This takes away Leah’s power, because Phil almost acts like she said nothing, robbing her of her power and respect. Leah is a character who is feminine and in comparison to Cathy she does not, apart from that one event when she kills the hamster, engage in the violence of the gang, making her the rational one. She’s the one who thinks about what things they shouldn’t do; so they ignore her. Whereas Cathy, who engages in the violence within the gang, feels peer pressured because she has to behave in a certain way to be accepted and listened to. This play being written at the same time as the riots becoming so monumental because it was the first time something like that happened and people got involved because they saw other people doing it, is the same reason why Cathy involved herself in the violence within the gang, making her think she’s going to be fine. Cathy becomes anonymous because she’s part of the gang, but she wants recognition and that’s why she starts to become violent. Whereas Leah stands out on her own and doesn’t want to be involved and tells them when things are wrong,

until she breaks down when she has that scene with the hamster and does engage in the violence. With Curley’s Wife, we the readers start off with this negative image of her, but with Leah we feel more sympathetic. Both of these views build up to seeing both of them do bad things. We see Curley’s Wife be really horrible to Crooks and being manipulative of Lennie. With Leah, we see her kill the hamster which is completely out of character and that’s her moment when she is actually most like the gang. Curley’s wife is cruel to Crooks showing hoe she begins to imitate the actions of the men, as Crooks is the only individual she can exert power over due to his race and the discrimination at the time.
In conclusion, both these texts reflect male dominance within society as women are subjected to patriarchy. Steinbeck and Kelly portray women as the weaker and more subordinate sex to highlight the inequality they face because of their gender. Kelly decided to let his heroine escape the confines of her existence because it’s a more modern text, showing that the opportunities for women now are more linear that they were for women in the past, especially the 1930s. In comparison Steinbeck tries to help us understand how women were perceived in the 1930’s society through the character of Curley’s Wife. Towards the end Steinbeck shows the audience a lovely image of her; which is really what they should’ve viewed her as. In some ways, Steinbeck can be seen as a feminist, but he’s showing us that, a woman like Curley’s Wife can’t survive in the 1930s society. Kelly shows us that patriarchy still exists in a modern society, as he shows this through Leah.