A reoccurring theme that transcendences through history is the objectification genders face when trying to fulfill both societal norms and roles. From an early age, we are taught what is socially acceptable for either gender—the do's and do not's. Primarily, men do not face such objectification in comparison to women. Due to the external pressures being implemented on such genders, it, in consequence, creates a form of resentment towards that said gender. In Nadezhda Durova’s autobiography, The Cavalry Maiden, we are presented with such an example. Durova within her autobiography narrates how being a noblewoman, during the reign of Alexander I, is a period in which this specific class of women can be seen as oppressed and limited in their freedom. By having Nadezhda’s mother hate her and implement such ideas into her mind, it results in Nadezhda to oppress the role women must comply with in order to maintain a “fulfilled” life.
To fully understand the actions that
…show more content…
Nadezhda took within her autobiography The Cavalry Maiden, we must begin by identifying Nadezhda family lineage—which in turn will present us her social class status. Only from this, can we correctly identify the specific roles and norms that pertain to Nadezhda. Durova states, “my mother[s] […] father, [is] a proud, autocratic [in] Little Russia” (17). By presenting such image that Nadezhda grandfather, through her mother’s side, is an autocrat. We associate him, and his family, with ideas such as: attending a university, having a high status within the Russia government, and the luxury of living a comfortable life away from poverty. In addition to Nadezhda grandfather being an autocrat, her mother married a Lieutenant—Lieutenant Durovo. Being a child of a Lieutenant and granddaughter to an autocrat, we can only automatically assume that Nadezhda pertains to the noble class. During the reign of Alexander I, through the point-of-view of Nadezhda, women of her class, the noble class, live traditional lives; meaning, being restrained—“she [would not] let me walk in the garden [alone]” (20)—, learning traditional traits and developing certain hobbies —“[making] lace, […] to sew, [and] to knit” (20)—, and lastly to have the daughters father choose a suitable suitor for marriage—“the choice [is] of her father” (17). Although these are the traditional roles women of the noble class should partake in. Nadezhda never had to desire nor the drive to learn such traditions and practices. Initially we learn that Nadezhda mother hoped for a son and by having Nadezhda her mother began to resent Nadezhda and her birth. By having such hatred towards her daughter we begin to see how her mother’s hatred is being used as an outlet in order to inflict punishment on Nadezhda. According to Durova, Nadezhda seeks “freedom and a military life” (20). As a result, by Nadezhda mother knowing such desires; we begin to see the correlation between the persistence in attempting to implement noble women traditional roles into Nadezhda as a means to divide Nadezhda’s wants and the cannot have—wanting a military life and to live away from social pressures. This urge in wanting to pursue one’s desire and by having obstacles and individuals prevent the obtainment of such desires, we begin to question: which path we will choice? In regards to Nadezhda within The Calvary Maiden, a question presents itself: what path will Nadezhda take? Either to follow the traditional role of womanhood laid out by society or to live a contempt life, a free life. By answering such question it will define how Nadezhda will be both identified and presented in society. Throughout the development of Durova’s autobiography we begin to identify the characteristics and views Nadezhda has in regards to the role of a noblewoman. Eventually, Nadezhda does choose the path in which she rejects the social norms and standards that a noblewoman must uphold; from this Nadezhda decides to leave the home she once knew. Committing to such decision is monumental, Nadezhda has to completely change her identity—shaving off her braids and to dress in male attire, initially a Cossack uniform. Within the first half of Droves autobiography we are shown Nadezhda lineage, constraints that pertain to the woman of the noble class, and how through her development—youth to adolescence—Nadezhda was manipulated into acting a traditional manner. Because of such events we been to see the change within Nadezhda who sooner than leader becomes Alexander Vasilyevich—Nadezhda in the male form. By deciding to leave the noble class and choosing to close “the door of [her] paternal home” she acknowledges that “maybe [this door] would never open […] again” (30). By leaving this role in the past, Nadezhda, now known as Alexander, is exempt from the traditional roles and expectations that are imposed on the noblewomen during the reign of Alexander I. To leave her home and to change her appearance from female to male, she, is no longer confined to the standers that are associated with men. Meaning, being able to lead the life she imagined for herself. However take into consideration this question: why did Nadezhda decide to leave the noblewoman class to fulfill the duties that correspond to men, in this case, enrolling in the army. From an early age Nadezhda mother resented the fact that she existed.
The culmination of this resentment lead to the mistreatment and solitude that Nadezhda faced while growing up. Being constantly punished and receiving subtle hints that Nadezhda behavior is un-lady like it led Nadezhda to not wanting to be defined by these normative constraints. Therefore, the difference between Nadezhda rejecting to follow a noblewoman duties and wanting to fulfill a masculine role is that during her childhood Nadezhda did not hide the fact that she was fond of a military life and wanting to live outside the constraints society has associated with noblewomanhood—living a content life rather than being judged. If Nadezhda had not been punished so constantly and being forced to follow her mothers teaching maybe Nadezhda would have not left her parents home. In addition, maybe finding a middle ground between her mothers discipline and Nadezhda wants could have led to a compromise in which both parties could live
with. By now we understand that Nadezhda has left the role of being a noblewoman in order to pursue a more fulfilling role in life. But after all the sacrifices that Nadezhda has made, does Nadezhda believe she lead a more meaningful life being Alexander or being Nadezhda?Throughout Durova’s autobiography, Durova presents us with scenarios in which Alexander has achieved “greatness”; take for example the date of May 22, 1807. During this day Durova tells the story in which Alexander rescued “Lieutenant Panin of the Finland Dragoon” (48). Saving the life of a Lieutenant is a big accomplishment. However, in order to save the life of Lieutenant Panin Alexander had to in that moment, release Alcides, Alexander’s house from her youth, into the lands of said Lieutenant. After such incident occurred, Alexander begins to ponder the idea that maybe releasing Alcides into the Lieutenants hands was not a good idea; reason being that maybe the Lieutenant in such a death defying situation may not remember such minor detail, which results in Alcides being lost forever. The question of death then appears and from this moment on the idea of remembrance develops. If Alexander were to die in battle would he/she feel that they had lived a meaningful life or if all of this was a waste? During her time as a “noblewoman” we saw Nadezhda views on such concept. She viewed such concept as meaningless because she did not believe that what she was doing had a purpose. In contrast, during her time as Alexander within the army we perceive both a sense of meaningfulness but also the emotional connotation of disappointment. Going back to the example of Lieutenant Panin, saving someones life of such rank and being apart of a group that is creating change has meaning. Alexander is not being put off to the side or is being used as a stationary object; rather being an active participant has more meaning and a sense of fulfillment than being an object such as a noblewoman if she were to remain in her parents home.
Women were auctioned off as “merchandise” to the best suitor they could get in town. Beauty, though important, was not as important as the dowry the woman possessed, because it was the dowry the family provided that could exalt a man’s societal status to all new heights. Once married, women were expected to have son’s for their husbands in order to take over the family business. A barren woman was not an option and could have easily been rushed to the nearest convent to take her vows of a nun, for no honor could be brought otherwise. No woman could run from the societal and legal pressures placed upon them. Rather than run, some chose to accept their place, but, like Lusanna, some chose to fight the status quo for rights they believed they
Hill, Barbara. Imperial Women in Byzantium 1025-1204: Power, patronage and ideology. New York: Longman, 1999. Print.
During this time period women were not respected at all and were belittled by all med in their lives. Even though men don’t appreciate what women they still did as they were told. In particular, “Women have an astoundingly long list of responsibilities and duties – th...
Thesis Statement: Men and women were in different social classes, women were expected to be in charge of running the household, the hardships of motherhood. The roles that men and women were expected to live up to would be called oppressive and offensive by today’s standards, but it was a very different world than the one we have become accustomed to in our time. Men and women were seen to live in separate social class from the men where women were considered not only physically weaker, but morally superior to men. This meant that women were the best suited for the domestic role of keeping the house. Women were not allowed in the public circle and forbidden to be involved with politics and economic affairs as the men made all the
“The Awakening” is a courageous piece of literature work that demonstrates how civilization forced tremendously elevated expectancies for females and their hypothetical roles. Kate Chopin uses this novel to bring those “expected roles” to light. Edith Wharton also shows how this epidemic has restricted and impaired two of the protagonist in her story “Roman Fever”. During the time period that this book was written, in the early nineteenth century, this epidemic of forcing roles on women was widespread, and this altered the lives of these women in an abysmal way incessantly.
The movement for female right is one of the important social issue and it is ongoing reaction against the traditional male definition of woman. In most civilizations there was very unequal treatment between women and men with the expectation being that women should simply stay in the house and let the men support them. A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, and Trifles, by Susan Glaspell, are two well-known plays that give rise to discussions over male-female relationships. In both stories, they illustrate the similar perspectives on how men repress women in their marriages; men consider that women should obey them and their respective on their wives is oppressed showing the problems in two marriages that described in two plays. Therefore, in this essay, I will compare two similar but contrast stories; A Doll's House and Trifles, focusing on how they describe the problems in marriage related to women as victims of suppressed right.
In the Persian Letters, Baron de Montesquieu explores the various methods of controlling women in both the Persian harem and in French society. In Persia, women are confined to a seraglio and have many of their liberties striped. Throughout the letters, we see a justification for why these women have to be locked up and watched by eunuchs. Persian men have to preserve the women’s virtue because if they do not, their wives will become immoral just like the French women. “That our women belong to us too absolutely; that possession obtained so easily leaves no scope for hope or fear; that a little coquetry, like salt, stimulates the appetite, and prevents corruption” (Letter 38). The Parisian women are not free from control either because in
“Days of a Russian Noblewoman” is a translated memoir originally written by a Russian noblewoman named Anna Labzina. Anna’s memoir gives a unique perspective of the private life and gender roles of noble families in Russia. Anna sees the male and female gender as similar in nature, but not in morality and religiosity. She sees men as fundamentally different in morality and religiosity because of their capability to be freely dogmatic, outspoken, and libertine. Anna implies throughout her memoir that woman in this society have the capacity to shape and control their lives through exuding a modest, submissive, and virtuous behavior in times of torment. Through her marriage, Labzina discovers that her society is highly male centered.
In modern day society, female gender roles are defined in several of forms; ranging from the stereotypical concept of women being the primary caretakers to women being the dominant sex. After analyzing two sources of past literature, two iconic women represent personas of both social standings. In the literary works “Genesis” of The Hebrew Bible; along with, “Lysistrata” by Aristophanes, impactful phenomena take place in the era of these women.
The period is the early 19th century; those involved and discussed in this essay are for the most part Russian gentry. Increasingly relaxed social mores in the “developed” world, including the greater freedom to choose to whom one gets married to as well as increased women’s sexual rights, were much more uncommon during the time that War and Peace takes place. Tolstoy, an outspoken critic of arranged marriages, uses the characters in his novel as a way of exploring the various types of love, and in general the interactions between men and women of the time. This essay will attempt to focus on these relationships in an effort to get a better idea of Tolstoy’s views on the proper roles that men and women should play as friends, lovers, or spouses. By exploring the male/female relationships among the noble families, a detailed picture of both the expectations and realms of acceptable behavior will be established.
In Greek literature, women are commonly assigned traditional gender roles. They are forced, confined, and demoted under the relentless and debilitating categorization of submissive, melodramatic, and obedient. When their position in society is juxtaposed with the role of men, the overwhelming discrepancy in the ability to pursue happiness and rights between men and women are especially apparent. While women are often overlooked and considered weak by societal terms, men are regarded upon in the highest esteem and provided with power and authority correlated with their gender, which automatically qualifies them with the role of the dominant figure in society. For the longest of time, society has constructed the role of women in a restrictive way to
Feminists from various eras have shown moments of resignation, wondering whether they have become masculine in their struggle against male oppression. This struggle does not have an easy answer. One feminist retaliation to Lysistrata’s approach is that the marriage of beauty and submissiveness is a totalitarian quality invented by males to make women feel dependent or incomplete without male affection. At the same time, Lysistrata makes clear that militancy is a decisively male quality, as throughout history men have been the ones to initiate battles. During the Gulf War, it was common to find bumper stickers that said: “If Women Rule the World, There Would Be No
The biological differences that set apart the male and female gender throughout any culture remain eminent. Men are perceived as the stronger and dominant gender; women play the role of the weaker. In each culture the expectation of the manner in which men and women behave are influenced by the ideals and customs of that culture. In most predominant cultures, the man undertakes the role as a leader, and the woman devotes her life to the husband. Throughout history, traditions and literature provide a template to the identities of various cultures. Sleeping Beauty’s classic tale of a beautiful princess takes a central precept that previous patriarchal archetypes dominated during the 17th Century. The archetypal perceptions of women resulted from conscious and unconscious literature influenced by male-dominated perspectives and social standards.
In “The Trial of Girlhood” and “A Perilous Passage In the Slave Girl’s Life” Jacobs’s narrative emphasizes the problems that are faced by female slaves. She shares the sexual abuses that are commonly practiced by slave master against young female slaves. She does this through revealing the unique humiliation and the brutalities that were inflicted upon young slave girls. In this narrative we come to understand the psychological damage caused by sexual harassment. We also realize how this sexual harassment done by the slaveholders went against morality and “violated the most sacred commandment of nature,”(Harriet 289)as well as fundamental religious beliefs.
“Women are the only oppressed group in our society that lives in intimate association with their oppressors.” said American journalist Evelyn Cunningham. For centuries, women were considered inferior to their male counterparts and caged into the small bubble of the domestic sphere, left out of any advancements in politics or science. In protest, women would attempt to voice their opinions is various ways, such as going through their husbands, writing essays under a male alias, or just plainly defying society’s regulations. One central issue that was prevalent in society was the woman’s place in marriage. By old tradition, the wife was to serve her husband and please him in every way she could. As time progressed, however, women began to demand a stronger place in the family life. One major part of that family life was being able to have a choice in the matter of marriage. Leo Tolstoy’s 1870s novel Anna Karenina promotes this feministic social change in nineteenth-century Russia through the development of the relationships of two women, Kitty and Anna, with one representing a life with a choice and the other a life without choice.