I consider myself a fire-breathing feminist, so I’m trying to figure out why I’m so fascinated by Le Morte Darthur, which should send me into a fury of rants about sexism and social injustice. Maybe it’s because the role of medieval women (or at least Malory’s portrayal of it) is so antiquated, it seems useless to argue against it. It could also be because I’m letting the work do what it does best, which is examining the process of male identity construction; over-analyzing the obvious prejudice against women feels a bit like attacking Jaws for demonizing sharks. It’s just too easy. Mostly, though, the reason I’m so oddly forgiving of the oversimplified female characters is because I think it stems from medieval men’s complete and utter terror of women.
Many Arthurian women are associated with witchcraft and supernatural beings (Particularly Morgan and Nimue), which suggests that their actual human nature is intimidating to the men who deem them otherworldly. Because they don’t have the power to socially exert themselves, these women are forced to remain mysterious in their own culture. They’re either portrayed as tricksters whose sexuality lures men into traps, or as angelic beings whose purity is so unearthly, they can’t exist in the human world. (I’m thinking of Perceval’s sister and Elaine of Astolat, whose ridiculous amount of “goodness” proves to be a physical weakness in the world of men.)
The knights’ fierce loyalty to the brotherhood of the Round Table (which, as we’ve read many times in Le Morte Darthur, is valued over any relationship with women) almost seems like herd mentality as they band together against women and praise each other for their manliness. They’re so dedicated to perfecting their masculinity that femininity becomes foreign, and therefore, dangerous to the male-dominated society they’re attempting to construct.
Even Guinevere, who is praised for being a “true lover,” is lumped into the category of “other” because the compliment only refers to her relationships with Lancelot and Arthur -- it has nothing to do with her as an individual human being. She’s complimented for being one half of a couple. (Or two couples, as it were.) This belittling classification is a way of turning her into something inhuman that can be possessed, and therefore less of a threat to male superiority.
But there I go, getting on my feminist soap box...
I think it is a good point to bring up that Arthuriana is mostly focused on "examining the process of male identity construction" whenever gender comes up. It is somewhat like discussing the role of women in Reservoir Dogs. They simply are not the focus of the story, or what the authors are generally interested (or possibly qualified) to analyze.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the difference between Arthuria and Reservoir Dogs (or Jaws) is that it is an entire tradition, spanning hundreds of years, from hundreds if not thousands of authors, and even more works. Despite this vast range of material, women are almost always given the same role. This could be because the authors of the time simply did not know how to write women very convincingly or with much depth (a problem that regrettably persists today) or if they just believed there were no interesting stories that could be told about women.
While this can be explained by the time-period most Arthuriana was written in, it is still a regrettable skewing of focus. Who wouldn't like a little more perspective on the motives of Morgan le Fey? And wouldn't it be interesting to get a look into the mind of Guinevere and see how she thought of her relationships to both Lancelot and Arthur. While I'm sure there are stories that go into these issues more than what we've read this semester, they're clearly less common than alternate takes on Lancelot or Gawain. And that's really too bad.
I think you're right, Jenny, in making your Jaws analogy. I think honestly I wasn't bothered by the portrayal of women in Morte DArthur because it honestly just wasn't about the women, here. Even when Guinivere did show up, she wasn't actually ever the 'point' of what was going on. The most overt example of this being in the end when the allegations of an affair between Guinievere and Lancelot case a rift between Lancelot and Arthur. The damaged relationship between Lancelot and Arthur was the privileged relationship, not the marriage or even the romance with Gwen (I'm tired of trying to spell her full name). Is that, perhaps, in retrospect a bit insulting? Maybe. The emphasis, however, is placed on the relationship that couldn't be fixed after the fight--that of Arthur and Lancelot. The relationship between Arthur and Gwen never seemed to be doomed, and it was in the end readily mended. Not so with Arthur and Lancelot.
ReplyDeleteYour feelings are a major testament to Malory's skill as a writer, damn him.