Femininity in Shaws Pygmalion and Rhys Wide Sargasso Sea - Essay Example

Femininity in Shaw’s Pygmalion and Rhys’ Wide Sargasso Sea The definition of femininity has been difficult to pin down in recent years, but has been a relatively constant idea throughout much of history, at least when one was considering the ideals of the nobility. These ideas were finally explored in the 1960s as the social constructs of the nation were undergoing drastic change. Evidence left in diaries, journals, newspapers, magazines and other media presented a fairly solid portrait of how a true woman was envisaged by a large portion of the population. However, not all cultures held to the same rigid restrictions and expectations and these cultures were only beginning to find their voice and have it heard in the 1960s. What these new voices were saying was also reflecting a changing ideology among the general population, fanning the flames of a new definition. To understand these different viewpoints of femininity, both as an expression of a dominant culture as well as an expression of changing general attitudes, George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion, produced in 1913, will be compared with Jean Rhys’ Wide Sargasso Sea, written in 1966. It has long been recognized that George Bernard Shaw included many of his own personal political and social ideologies within his work. It can safely be assumed that the ideas of femininity he expresses in his work reflect the ideals of the society in which he lived. Examining the Pygmalion (1913), therefore, can reveal a great deal regarding the Western concepts of femininity as well as the ideals of many previous generations. The primary plot of the play revolves around Shaw’s belief that a common girl such as Eliza Doolittle can overcome her proletariat past with a little education and effort. More importantly, however, the concepts of progress for Eliza as they are compared to her father’s success illustrate the ideals of femininity held within Shaw’s culture and time period. The action of the play is centered on Eliza, a flower girl from the streets of London, as she works diligently through several impossible tasks set by Henry Higgins, a renowned linguist and member of the upper class, to try to change her diction to such a degree that she can be passed off as a duchess. Manly behavior such as speaking loudly or contradicting a man is quickly and harshly dealt with. That this is not a condition of her poor condition in life is indicated by Higgins’ more considerate treatment of Alfred Doolittle. Similarly, while Eliza’s fortitude in pursuing her task is commented on frequently by Higgins and Pickering, particularly noticed as they discuss Eliza’s progress, little credit is actually given to Eliza herself. It is as if commenting upon the strength and fortitude of a woman would detract from her femininity by associating these more masculine attributes with her. Despite some early setbacks, such as an unexpected and unaccustomed bath, an unpleasant visit from her father and a minor slip during afternoon tea at Mrs. Higgins’ house, Eliza quickly develops into a young lady presentable in high society. As her progress is followed, it can be seen that this involves not just lessons in proper diction from Higgins, but also the lessons in etiquette, carriage and culture provided her by Pickering, the forced adoption of proper personal behaviors enforced by Mrs. Pierce and the examples set for her by Mrs. Higgins, as well as a small fortune in fashionable clothing and proper accessories. Through this depiction, it becomes obvious that the feminine depended upon a quiet demeanor, a controlled gentility and a general helplessness. Eliza, who had once had no one but herself to depend upon, was required to learn how to depend upon Pickering for everything she needed, Higgins for his knowledge and Mrs. Pierce for her everyday personal needs. However, this presents a problem in itself, pointed out by Mrs. Higgins as she chastises the men for having provided Eliza with “the manners and habits that disqualify a fine lady from earning her own living without giving her a fine lady’s income” (67). Eliza finally recognizes the peril she’s in following the grand ball in which she is pronounced a Hungarian princess. “What is to become of me?” (76) she keeps asking, not finding a satisfactory answer in the words she receives from Higgins in reply. She realizes that though life was harsh on the streets, life as a lady suits her for only one pursuit, selling herself in marriage to the highest bidder she can find. This ‘proper’ outcome for a young lady is contrasted sharply with the concept of success for her father. Alfred Doolittle’s success is characterized by a well-paying job that allows him to continue just being himself rather than the wrenching drastic change that Eliza had to undergo. This is compared to Jean Rhys’ Wide Sargasso Sea in which the main character, Antoinette, exists within the same general time period as Eliza, but her story is told from the perspective of a 1960s female writer with a minority cultural perspective. The angry tone with which the tale is told, as well as the accusatory finger pointed at the patriarchal society that provided Antoinette with no safe harbor in which to seek shelter is characteristic of the resentful expressions of the women’s liberation movements that were occurring at the time the novel was written. At the same time, the confusion and isolation of the young woman caught between worlds, cultures and already doomed by genetics is presented with sympathy and understanding, illustrating how Antoinette had little choice but to abandon herself to madness in the end. This is clearly a different viewpoint from that presented by Shaw. Although she is presenting her heroine as existing within a similar time frame as Shaw’s character, Rhys presents a much more confining image of femininity in her novel. While Shaw’s character is expected to be demure, well-mannered and submissive, she is still rewarded for her efforts – Eliza is given the opportunity to train for a new lifestyle and the tools and accessories necessary to pull it off. Antoinette receives no rewards for good behavior. Through no fault of her own, she is isolated not only from her own family, but also from her closest friends, as is illustrated when Tia throws a rock at her after Coulibri goes up in flames. It remains important for Antoinette to receive the same kind of training and constraints regarding her femininity as her counterparts in England. Although she is not given any more motherly attention than Eliza, she is sent to a convent school for girls where she is taught the proper attitudes of a young lady and is eventually ‘successful’ in that she is able to attract a wealthy English husband. However, her success is called into question almost immediately as it is seen that her husband only married her as a means of ensuring his wealth. The marriage arrangements had been made by Antoinette’s step-brother with little to no concern about Antoinette’s welfare. As it turns out, Antoinette’s husband couldn’t care less for her homeland or for Antoinette herself. Although she makes herself available to her husband in every way she can conceive of, her husband remains coldly indifferent to her attentions and offers little to nothing of himself. His lack of concern is illustrated in his comments about her: “You are safe’, I’d say. She’d like that – to be told ‘you are safe.’ Or I’d touch her face gently and touch tears. Tears – nothing! Words – less than nothing. I did not love her. I was thirsty for her, but that is not love. I felt very little tenderness for her, she was a stranger to me, a stranger who did not think or feel as I did” (93). Her feelings and thoughts mean nothing to him. In this presentation, Antoinette is nothing more than free and permissible sex, in any form of savagery he’d like to take it. Her anonymity in this action is made more manifest when her husband begins to call her Bertha because it is a name he likes, without any concern for her preference. In this analysis, it becomes evident that femininity included a demure nature, quiet ways, submissiveness to men and helplessness. Women were property, social assets and sexual objects existing for men’s pleasure. This behavior was rewarded in Shaw’s presentation, but refused and rejected in Rhys’ to the point where Antoinette could no longer make sense of her world. In each case, loud or argumentative behavior is considered to be unfeminine and highly unattractive, often chastised. Despite their similarities, the differing perspectives of the two writers are evident in the way in which they portray the outcomes of these behaviors. While Eliza is given her dreams as reward for conforming to the female ideal, indicating that this is a right action, Antoinette’s attempts at femininity are rejected as vehemently as her more assertive behaviors, indicating that any attempts to conform to someone else’s definition can only lead to ruin. While the foundational concepts of femininity might not have changed much from one work to the other, the changing perspectives and cultures between the two writers bring out sharply different viewpoints regarding the true effects these constraints have had. References Rhys, Jean. (1966, reprint 1982). Wide Sargasso Sea. New York: W.W. Norton. Shaw, Bernard. (2000). Pygmalion. New York: Penguin Classics. Welter, Barbara. (1966). “The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860.” American Quarterly. Vol. 18, N. 2, P. 1, pp. 151-74. Read More