Marital Oppression In “The Story Of An Hour”Essay Preview: Marital Oppression In “The Story Of An Hour”Report this essayIn “The Story of an Hour” by Kate Chopin, we are introduced to Mrs. Mallard, an unloving, heartless, woman who is overjoyed by the passing of her husband–or at least that is the common misconception. Mrs. Mallard although perceived as inhuman is actually more human than most would like to believe. While her actions may seem questionable or even to be condemned, they are hardly unthinkable in light of the issues involving marriage and the womans role throughout history. The story itself presents a valid argument in favor of Louise as she is portrayed as the oppressed wife finally set free after her husbands death.
In the beginning of “The Story of an Hour,” Mrs. Mallard is just a typical wife. It is not until she hears of her husbands death that she then simply becomes Louise, now an individual, no longer overshadowed by her husband. Following her husbands death, Louise feels she will no longer suffer a “powerful will bending her” (14), thus indicating she had lacked a voice in the marriage. Chopin clearly indicates this lack of freedom and individuality in Louises marriage stating, “[. . .] that blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow creature.” (14). This statement reflects how men and women oppress each other, denying one another freedom and a sense of identity. This is in line with the common view that women lost their individuality because their, “legal existence had been extinguished by the status of marriage.” (Robson). Next, we learn that Louise actually begins to accept, even enjoy the notion of a life by herself, as Chopin writes the years “that would belong to her absolutely [. . .] she would live for herself.” (14). Louise would now be free, her own identity, with a renewed sense of self-assertion. “Free! Body and soul free!” (15). This newfound freedom is in effect a new motivation for Louise. Before experiencing such freedom, Louise was petrified of the thought of life being long; now however, she felt herself wishing, even praying for life to be long. This is evidenced with the following quote, “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.” (15). This depicts an ever embracing Louise, finally liberated of the powerful institution of marriage. What is more, this quote serves to further support the idea that Louise indeed felt trapped, she was unhappy and yet, the thought of her husband dying hadnt crossed her mind, only the relief from her own passing was her wish.
Moreover, “The Story of an Hour”, shows that Louise felt her husbands domination through the “powerful will bending her” (14), later she is in “this possession of self-assertion which she suddenly recognized as the strongest impulse of her being.” (15). This last statement indicates this newborn contention in Louise, made only possible by Mr. Mallards death. In Mr. Mallards death, Louise finds herself being able to assert herself in unimaginable ways; Mrs. Mallard is no longer limited to the confines of her marriage. Ultimately, all of this new brazenness and freedom is dependent
on Mr. Mallards death, thus one would not have occurred without the other. The fact that Louise on her own indicates the bending of her will to her husbands depicts the hard reality of women and the passive persona it entails, completely in contrast to this new person emerged–Louise. Louise would now only live for herself, something that was previously unimaginable and unattainable. After years of marital confinement and oppression, Louise is suddenly a free woman; the emotion is so exciting that it cannot be hidden and is so profound that Louise dare not oppress it.
The character of Louise is not uncommon, even in the modern world of today there are still many women who assume a subordinate role, which is visible in still highly traditional societies such as that of Islam or Latin cultures. In fact, according to Michael C. Kearl,
“Women have always had lower status than men, but the extent of the gap between the sexes varies across cultures and time (some arguing that it is inversely related to social evolution). In 1980, the United Nations summed up the burden of this inequality: Women, who comprise half the worlds population, do two thirds of the worlds work, earn one tenth of the worlds income and own one hundredth of the worlds property.”
However, to make a strong case, it is important to revisit the actual time in which this story was written–the 1800s. At this time women had essentially no rights, they were mere objects of possession of their fathers and later their husbands. “In 1800, patriarchy was still the norm. By law, women were property of their fathers first, then their husbands. Married women faced particular discrimination.” (Women). Women could not conduct business for themselves, could not own land, and could not petition for divorce. In fact, “Until the 1970s women constituted a distinct legal caste: laws subordinated women to men in the family, restricted womens access to public life, attached womens obligations to the domestic sphere, and denied women independent personhood.” (Mink). In todays society where women can now become CEOs of major corporations, enter into contracts for property, and obtain a quickie divorce, the reality of a woman living in the 1800s is not only unthinkable but unacceptable. Yet even so, it is funny and ironic that the typical reaction of students, especially women, after reading “The Story of an Hour,” is still one of disapproval of Mrs. Mallard given the reality of her situation. This situation is most accurately described by Betty Friedan as a “comfortable concentration camp.”
It is much easier to condemn a person than to take the time and ask what their motivation is. The true question that should be asked is the motivation behind Mrs. Mallards response to her husbands death, is Louise truly a heartless woman worthy of our condescension? As noted before, Louise was obviously an oppressed woman. Moreover, in light of the common treatment of marriage and women in the 1800s, there is little doubt that Louise was evidently trapped in her marriage, unable to divorce her husband despite the fact that she was noticeably unhappy, mainly because she simply would not have been able to, but also because she would have been condemned by society. When this is taken into consideration it is fairly easy
The argument and the conclusion that the woman in question and Louise were not “true victims” should be reconsidered in light of the fact that, on the whole, if it were possible to prove that Louise was, rather, guilty of a crime or act of abuse, the case against Louise would be dismissed. The argument that the woman was a victim of “child sexual abuse” or “consensual sodomy” only serves to make the matter worse. As noted above, in light of many of Louise’s recent allegations, we may look over Louise’s legal defence before even deciding the verdict, if any at all, in the case of sex offender Louise Minter. As we mentioned above, the claim that Louise was child molester or rapist is, on its own merits, far from credible, as it was a common claim raised in recent cases. However, as a matter of fact she was a victim himself, and she was, to a large extent, an unwitting pawn. With the exception of a few notable exceptions, which we will refer to as “family of the year” cases, there is no evidence that Louise was the victim of any of Louise’s children or of any of Louise’s other children.
In order to examine the evidence of other family members Louise Minter was accused of having abused, attempted, or raped at least three children. In one such case Louise Minter was accused of being a “supernanny” and an “asshole” who subjected her to sex rituals and oral or anal sex during her years of childbearing and had sexual contact with a child which was, according to the witnesses, “very rough” in nature. He was also convicted of domestic battery by the police, and there is evidence of two incidents which would be considered evidence of child sexual abuse. The abuse alleged was one of two (the other being a rape by one’s partner in this case) committed by Louise Minter during her ‘sad’ teenage years. (One is to remind that this abuse is not, as it was portrayed in The Family, any less serious than the other cases, because there is absolutely no indication she was abused herself. We can only wonder why she was not put in legal custody at the time of these reports.)
What the witnesses have not given is that Louise was the only single child she saw in any of her children’s years; furthermore, as noted above, there is no evidence that any of their children was in fact abused by Louise. And, while several of the witnesses have mentioned how the couple’s physical injuries did not make Louise any less vulnerable to abuse, this lack of evidence makes for little more than a few bizarre things about Louise Minter’s performance in custody. The fact that so many of Louise’s children died of their injuries leaves us with the impression that Louise’s testimony was not credible at all. The same is not true