The Representation of Gender Role or Marriage - Essay Example

A comparison of Representation of Gender Roles/or Marriage in the two short stories Robert Sims English 125 April MacGrotty 2-14 The Representation of Gender Role/or Marriage Both the stories the Necklace by Maupassant and the story of an hour by Chopin depict the lives of two different women with different life styles. However the depiction of the problems of their married lives is not only touching but also reflects their misery that they suffer with in their relationship that they share with their respective husbands as well as the life the two characters have created. It is stated that, “marriage is considered one of the fundamental characteristics that identify our specie as human” (Thornton, Axinn and Xie, 2007, p.4). However both the writers are observed to be depicting a married life that reflects the pain and desolation of the two women and this depiction adds a new dimension or meaning to marriage and relationships because the definition and importance of marriage has undergone a transformation since the old times. Also the gender roles have also undergone a change since women are now emerging as individual beings rather than a docile and a submissive counter part in a married relationship. In reference to this new meaning it is also stated, “The role of marriage in the society itself has become blurred” (Thornton, Axinn and Xie, 2007, p.5). This diverse and disillusioning representation of the institute of marriage symbolizes the despair and despondency of human race and society in the modern world. Moreover the representation of women as the victims of not only the society’s or their family’s will but also fate makes the readers realize the injustices that are done to women. Consequently such a depiction adds the strains of feminism in both the prose. Although both the writers make use of the theme of feminism in their stories yet the manner in which each author depicts it reflects the unique style and perspective of each writer. The Story of An Hour is a depiction of a woman’s tumultuous emotional journey from sadness to joy to shock and death as a result of the shock with in the time frame of one hour. The story gives an insight of a woman’s mind and the manner in which she deals with the terrible news of her husband’s death. Mrs. Mallard’s actions and reaction gives the story a lot of subtext that the readers explore because through her actions the readers explore and interpret the hidden or the underlying meaning i.e. marriage is not an institute of security and stability for women anymore in fact it is a relationship of misery and pain. The Necklace is a story about a lower middle class woman Mathilde Loisel and her marriage. The story reflects the protagonist’s inferiority complex and the manner in which she suffers at the hand of fate as well because of her personal insecurities. Although unlike Chopin Maupassant projects a strong married bond that the protagonist shares with her husband through thick and thin of life. In Chopin’s story the depiction of married life describes marriage to be stifling and confining for the women. As stated in the text, “…the unsolved mystery, count for in face of this possession of self-assertion which she suddenly recognized as the strongest impulse of her being!” Free! Body and soul free!" she kept whispering.” (p.138-9). From this line the readers get an impression as if Mrs. Mallard was living like a caged creature in her relationship of marriage. Also it is mentioned, “She breathed a quick prayer that life might be long. It was only yesterday she had thought with a shudder that life might be long” (p.139). Her jubilation over the realization that she is free for once in her life further reflects her unhappy married life. As Bendixen and Nagel also state, “it is plain that married life had stilted her, transforming her in to a slave…” (2010, p.207). While Maupassant deals with the desire of a woman to rise above her social living and to experience the exhilaration of a life of leisure and luxury. However her greed to rise up in the society leads to her downfall and in fact her dream to live and taste another better life leads to her destruction and acts as an instigator to throw her in the pits of misery and a harsh life. As Kroll also states, “…consider the class issues so exquisitely delineated in de Maupassant short story ‘The Necklace’. The main character longs to rise to a higher class, yet circumstances forces her to pay for her ambitions with painful hard work of the poor” (2003, p.277). Moreover Mathilde’s experience in life also reiterates Maupassant’s interpretation of a strong married bond in which the two human beings act as one body when times get hard in life. Although Mathilde also considers her marriage confining in the beginning of the story however her dissatisfaction is because of her poor circumstances as stated in the text, “…she was unhappy as though kept out of her own class…She suffered from the poverty of her dwelling, from the worn walls, the abraded chairs, the ugliness of the stuffs” (p.1). Koloski states that, The story of an hour is a meditation about marriage and patriarchal privilege… In groundbreaking way the author’s central character Louise Mallard dismisses the matter of whether a husband and wife love one another and goes on to insist that institution of marriage warps human nature and imposes controlling and self destructing roles. This statement is a very pertinent portrayal of marriage in Chopin’s story and reflects the author’s perspective of marriage. Moreover the author mocks the institution of marriage as being a road to confinement and desolation for women rather a stage in a woman’s life that leads to eternal bliss and happiness. Under this context the continuous chant of the words “Free! Free! Free!” (p.139) can be interpreted as a reflection of Mrs. Mallard’s jubiliation over her new found freedom moreover her joy is in sync with Koloski’s description of marriage in The Story of An Hour. On the other hand Maupassant tries to reiterate the fact that in a relationship it only takes one miss deed that can give lead to a disaster. As Bloom also says, “…the story illustrates how a strong sense of pride can both create an opportunity and disaster in marriage” (2004, p.57). This is a major difference in the style of writings of the two authors because Chopin focuses on the darker or the stifling role marriage plays in a marriage while Maupassant focuses on the destruction that result because of ambitious nature of the woman. However he depicts a strong relationship and bonding that is shared between the husband and wife regardless of their mutual differences as it is apparent from the manner in which the couple works for ten hard years to return the loan they had taken. As it is mentioned in the text, They changed their flat; they took a garret under the roof…she washed the plates, wearing out her pink nails on the coarse pottery and the bottoms of pans…fighting for every wretched halfpenny of her money…her husband worked in the evenings at putting straight a merchants accounts, and often at night he did copying at two pence-halfpenny a page… At the end of ten years everything was paid off… (p. 9). No matter the circumstances such a projection of working together is a proof against the strength of a married relationship between a man and a woman also through such an illustration Maupassant wants his readers to realize the importance of marriage and strong bonding. Another aspect that both the authors’ explore in their prose is the role and personality of women as individuals. Both the characters Mrs. Louise Mallard and Mrs. Mathilde Loisel share one common characteristic i.e. the pattern of the sequence of events in their lives. Meaning that both the characters desire and dream of a life that is unattainable however they do get a chance to live those dreams for a small period of time although their bliss and joy is short lived as fate steps in like a dark cloud of pain and suffering and makes their lives a living hell. Although both the characters meet a tragic end yet the manner in which the two characters deal with this change and awakening to the reality of their respective lives is drastically different from one another since one dies because of lack of acceptance while the other shows courage to deal with her lot of problems in life although regret is the only thing she is left with in the end. In Chopin’s story the character of Mrs. Mallard can be interpreted as weak and fragile. However in the beginning she is projected as a strong woman because she courageously deals with the news of her husband’s demise. As mentioned in the text, She did not hear the story as many women have heard the same, with a paralyzed inability to accept its significance. She wept at once, with sudden, wild abandonment, in her sisters arms. When the storm of grief had spent itself she went away to her room alone (135). The manner in which she takes this news is commendable however her character is categorized as weak because once she had had the taste of freedom for an hour she is unable to accept that her husband is alive and she dies of shock. Her reaction to her husband being alive can be interpreted as her being delicate or weak hearted woman. Her death can also be interpreted as a symbolic representation of shattering of the woman’s dreams and wishes as well as the loss of hope since for her the pattern of her life would have become monotonous once again as her husband was back and alive. Moreover since all her hopes had died she could no longer survive in this world. Unlike Mathilde Loisel who had the courage to face the approaching misery and a bleak future Mrs. Mallard appears to be a weak woman who lacked the courage to deal with the unpredictability of life. In Mathilde’s case it is also stated in the prose, “Madame Loisel came to know the ghastly life of abject poverty. From the very first she played her part heroically. This fearful debt must be paid off. She would pay it” (p.9). Hence no matter her circumstance Mathilde not even once shirked away from her responsibilities in fact she faced them with internal strength and determinism. Fusco describes Maupassant stories as, “Maupassant thus forces the readers to contend with the unresolvable disparity between life as it ought to be and as it is” (1994, p.48). This further explains Maupassant perspective of life and also coveys his message to the readers that an individual should never lose hope regardless of the dire situations in life because life is the name of struggle and courage. The depiction of the male characters in both the stories is very conventional where the male is the same dominating superior self however he is concerned for the happiness of their wives in their own way as in the case of Mr. Loisel. As it is also observed in The Necklace that the husband tries his utmost to make his wife happy as it is apparent from his struggle to first attain an invitation to a high society official ball and then his effort to attire her in best clothes as also stated in the text, He was heart-broken…What would be the cost of a suitable dress, which you could also use on other occasions… He grew slightly pale, for this was exactly the amount he had been saving for a gun, intending to get a little shooting next summer on the plain of Nanterre with some friends who went lark-shooting there on Sundays. Nevertheless he said: "Very well. Ill give you four hundred francs. But try and get a really nice dress with the money” (p.4). Similarly in Chopin’s prose as well although Mr. Mallard appears in the story just once at the end however the readers get an impression that though he is a typical man with some domineering habits yet Mrs. Mallard cannot find a lot of fault with him as she herself says. “And yet she had loved him--sometimes” (p.137). Moreover his concern for his wife is also apparent from his amazement depicted towards the end of the story where it is mentioned, “He stood amazed at Josephines piercing cry” (p. 141). The conventional portrayal of male characters in both the stories reiterate the fact that although the nature of men remains the same it is time for women to bring about a change and realize their identity as an individual self rather than just a creature who has to do everything according to her husband’s bidding. Consequently Maupassant through his projection of the relationship that Mr. and Mrs. Loisel share illustrates the fact that it is necessary to create and retain a balance in a husband and wife relationship because they are the passengers of the same boat in life and hence mutual harmony and understanding is very important in order to lead a happy and a successful life. The manner in which the two authors end their stories is also plausible because both the author’s make use of irony in the end in their own way. The death of Chopin’s protagonist can be interpreted in terms of weakness as the text also states, “When the doctors came they said she had died of heart disease—of joy that kills”. In a way it reiterates the fact females are delicate specie who is at times unable to deal with shock of grief or joy. Moreover the comment itself is ironic because it was not the joy that killed her in fact it was the shock that the bliss and freedom that she had enjoyed in the past hour was just a farce and temporary. It was the realization of the fact that nothing has changed and she will once again have to spend her life according to her husband’s wishes and demands that resulted in her death. As mentioned in the text, “There would be no one to live for during those coming years; she would live for herself. There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow-creature” (p.136). This is basically the description of the life she dreamed of and would have had the chance to enjoy if her husband would have died however since he was alive so nothing had changed.  On the other hand Maupassant portrayal of Mathilda is that of a strong woman who not only works hard to repay the loan but also is able to digest the biggest shock of her life i.e. the reality of the necklace and its original worth. As stated in the story, “Oh, my poor Mathilde! But mine was imitation. It was worth at the very most five hundred francs! . . .” (p.11). moreover the end is also ironic because it depicts the futility of man’s existence and role of fate in the life of human beings because Mathilde and her husband had worked and lived a dreary life for ten harsh years and in the end Mathilde realizes that fate and hard luck had played a bad joke with them leaving them with nothing but regrets and despair. Both the writers deal with the same themes of projecting the dreary and the darker side of human life where human beings face heartache and disappointments and still move on because motion and struggle is second name of life and stagnation and denial can lead to destruction and chaos while in Mrs. Mallard’s case to death. However indirectly both the authors’ through their depiction of women want their readers to realize that the times have changed women are not the docile and submissive kind any more they are individuals with individual identities and rational thinking according to which they interpret and perceive their lives. Moreover both the stories reflect the fact that the modern woman is not only independent and free but she also has the power to bring about any change and deal with all the problems in her life because she is a strong individual and she has shed her cloak of docility and meekness and hence nothing can take away this realization and acceptance of her new found independence. Moreover now she is going to relish in her freedom and set the new pattern of her life. Hence it is observed that both the writers in their own unique way discuss the relationships between a man and woman and the projection of gender roles and interpretation of marriage is also very different from one another. While Chopin tends to talk about women liberation and independence Maupassant talks about the strong bonding. Chopin is a strong believer of making her women readers realize and accept their individual identity while Maupassant believes in working ones way together through life no matter the hardships that might come in ones way. Chopin suggests an independent living while on the other hand Maupassant projects the fact that in a marriage two people should build a life together and should have the power and courage to face even the most bitter realities and shocks in life. Hence both the writers present the readers with their personal interpretation of modern man’s life i.e. this life is full of disillusionment and destruction because man himself is his biggest enemy. . Reference: Bendixen, A., & Nagel, J. (2010). A companion to American short story. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Bloom, H. (2004). Guy de Maupsant. Chelsea: Chelsea House of Publishers. Fusco, R. (1994). Maupassant and the American short story. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. Koloski, B. (2009). Awakenings: the story of Chopin revival. Louisiana: Luisiana State University Press. Kroll, B. (2003). Exploring the dynamics of seconf language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press. Thornton, A., Axinn, G. W., & Xie, Y. (2007). Marriage and cohabitation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Read More