The final line “Who could not say, ‘Tis pity she’s a whore?” can be seen as directed towards her and so she is blamed for everything that has occurred. Throughout the play she is seen as quite powerful and headstrong by refusing many marriage proposals and being quite stubborn in doing so. However, she is reduced to a weak being however upon dying which is a culmination of her passions. It is perceived that women are a danger to men and to society as a whole and so Giovanni’s actions are to be blamed not on himself, but on Annabella because of the beauty she possesses. Giovanni states that Annabella’s “lips would tempt a saint” thus showing the corruption her presence inflicts upon even the supposed innocent of men.
Tragedy is used to vehicle the reader’s moral justifications, sympathy and ambiguities. This is caused by the character’s experiences, as they largely aggravate human discomfort and “question traditions and expectations when they seem too immutable.” (Azar Nafisi). The greatest of human discomforts is the conflict of moral pluralism, which evokes ethical ambiguities and sympathy for those who have transgressed. In the novel, Notes on a Scandal, the character Bathsheba Hart takes on an explicit and exploitive affair with one of her students, a boy at the tender age of thirteen. Q3 (122).
For instance, while the county attorney and sheriff are making their observations of the home, they do not take into consideration the awful state of the house as a possible clue of the everyday struggles in Mrs. Wright’s life. Instead, they blame Mrs. Wright right away for "not being a good housekeeper". Also, the men laugh at the women's assumptions in a way that seems pretty rude. This is also because, to the women, this is a normal form of treatment: they are simply to be seen and not heard; they are pretty much invisible. There is definitely a tendency to mock the remarks made by the females of the play just because they are women.
Lady Bracknell is arrogant, conservative, ruthless, and proper; she represents the Victorian upper-class and therefore is the key to the satire comedy seen within the play. Throughout the importance of being earnest she causes conflict due to her upholding these upper class ideologies such as girls not being allowed to choose their own husband she says to Gwendolen “You are not engaged to anyone. When you do become engaged to someone I, or your father, should his health permit him, will inform you of the fact.” she states here that the girls are not capable or experienced enough to choose their own husbands meaning Gwendolen was unable to become engaged to jack as he did not meet lady Bracknell’s high social status standard due to the fact he was an orphan. For the play to have a happy ending
She is first perceived as a weak character who Iago says keeps many thoughts to herself: "She puts her tongue a little in her heart," meaning that many of her most critical thoughts remain unsaid. Even Desdemona has to encourage her to speak. This silence throughout much of the play may be one cause of her drastically changing at the end. Initially Emilia sets out to please Iago without question, as this was her role as an Elizabethan wife, however at the end she speaks against him when she realizes his true intentions. Her change at the end of the play could show that she’s isn’t an outsider, as she now has her own opinion and her own voice like many of the other characters within the play.
He is able to instill fear in those who are beneath him as he uses corrupt government ideals and abuses his power. When Antigone quarrels with Creon in regards to burying her brother properly, Creon refuses to listen, as he says, “no woman shall be the master while [he lives]” (Sophecles I, ii). By refusing to listen to anyone and making his own decisions, Creon asserts his hierarchy and marks his place as the dictator; he will not allow anyone else to make their own decisions. Having power Creon does instills fear in others and causes them to treat him with the upmost respect. Because Creon is the only leader with total power, he refuses to “take [his] orders from the people of Thebes” (I, iii).
And what is a greater crime than making women hate themselves for reasons that they cannot change? The “anti-narcissism” that men have made consists of women not liking anything about them and wishing that they were the opposite sex just to get more respect. They don’t have any self-respect for themselves because of the nonsense that the “dominant” males have fed them their whole lives. This makes everything hostile for women and while men are busy controlling what the rules are and what can be published, women are struggling with this internal conflict that they’ll never get far in life because of their sex. Cixous boldly declares that women have been “kept in the dark.” What is this darkness you may ask?
Aristotle says that incontinence is brought forth by lack of knowledge of particulars due to being taken over by passions. This makes incontinent acts involuntary, just as an act of a mad, sleeping, or drunk man is involuntary. Aristotle also says that involuntary acts are pardoned ( Aristotle 35). The point of contradiction comes when Aristotle says that incontinence is blameworthy (Aristotle 119).This is why the response from Aristotle does not completely answer the question at hand. Epictetus has more sound argument.
For this reason, the pecado contra natura was feared and horrified the general public. This is because sodomy was believed to cause plagues, famines and natural disasters, based on the biblical example of Sodom and Gomorrah. Society saw sodomy as a sin against nature, a condemned sexual act that would not lead to procreation. As the machista culture was crucial to patriarchal colonial Latin America, the general population also usually ridiculed the passive male in the relationship more than the active one. The passive male was scorned and suffered much stigma “for having submitted to domination, being dependent, defeated, violated and effeminate.” As a result, society expected death to be the punishment for such a
Torvald’s attitude toward Nora Henrik Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” is a very controversial play that wounded every man’s masculinity and triggered their self-preservation alarm. Nora’s bold choice to leave her husband, along with her duties as a mother and as a housewife, caused a wave of criticism mostly, if not entirely, from the male population. In the 1800s it was unheard off for the woman to take full control over the situation, make her own decisions and most importantly to stand up and leave behind her spouse. Henrik Ibsen challenged the society’s mentality and shook the very foundation it was built on with his three act play. Evolution of Torvald’s character is shown from a man in control of his life, his wife and his household, to a man in front of whom his whole perfect life falls apart all thanks to one woman.