Treatment of Women in “The Yellow Wallpaper” Essay Example for Free

Treatment of Women in â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper† Essay â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper,† by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, is a short story which gives the reader insight on the plight of women in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. During this time, Gilman makes it clear that women were not only controlled by their husbands, but also by society. The particular elements in â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper† which lead to this conclusion are the setting of the story, both in terms of the main character’s room and the time period the story was written in, and the central conflict, which is the woman against her society. This paper will proceed to describe the significance of the woman’s surroundings and the societal pressures that held her captive.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper† was written by Gilman in 1892. From the very first page of the story it is easy to ascertain the situation in which the protagonist finds herself. She firmly believes that she is ill, but her husband and brother, both â€Å"physicians† (Gilman, 286), believe that she is not. Instead, they claim that she has a, â€Å"temporary nervous depression a slight hysterical tendency† (Gilman, 286). The woman has no recourse against this diagnosis. One can safely assume that if the two doctors of the family feel the same way, any other doctor would hardly disagree. The woman has a desire to work and to be out in society, but her husband insists that she remain secluded and rest. Perhaps the seclusion would not be so bad if it was not for the room that her husband insisted she take for the summer. The woman describes it as a â€Å"nursery,† but many things about the room indicate that is may have been anything but. There are â€Å"barred† windows, and â€Å"rings and things in the walls† (Gilman, 288). The floor is â€Å"scratched and gouged and splintered,† there are holes in the walls, and the bed is in bad shape, as well as apparently bolted to the floor (Gilman, 290-291). The worst thing, however, is the yellow wallpaper. It is described as being, â€Å"repellant, almost revolting, a smouldering, unclean yellow† (Gilman, 288). The woman states that the paper has been pulled off in places, and the vine pattern is nearly maddening by description. This vivid recreation of the room makes one think that it probably was not a nursery at all. Instead, the room reminds one more of an insane asylum. Even though the husband claims the woman is not sick, one must wonder at his true thoughts after insisting his wife stay in such a room.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The woman tells the reader many things that she does not feel comfortable relating to her husband or her sister-in-law. She longs to be somewhere else, anywhere else. She pleads with her husband to let her visit with relatives, but he claims that she is not strong enough to go (Gilman, 292). She begs to go home early, but he won’t hear of it. It seems that, generally, whatever she wants to do that might make her feel a bit better is out of the question. Instead, he suggests that if she is not better in the Fall, she should go to a doctor that specializes in â€Å"female hysteria† (Gilman, 291). The woman knows that this doctor will do nothing for her that her husband is not already doing, and will probably restrict her even more (Gilman, 291).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The reader gets the impression that depression is not well understood by the society in which the woman lives. The cure, according to the times, was to have the woman simply sit around and do nothing while being kept mostly out of sight. While rest may be good for depression, it seems that society during Gilman’s time was ill equipped to deal with a woman who cried and found it difficult to carry out the demands expected of her. Since no one really knew what to do, it must have seemed best to hide such people away and pretend that the problem would fix itself.   Besides, the woman’s husband claimed that she was not sick for as long as he could. Depression was not seen as an illness, which lends credibility to the idea that the husband wanted to send the woman away to the other â€Å"doctor† so she would not be a burden to him. One clue to the woman’s problem rests in the revelation that she has a baby (Gilman, 293). No one mentions the age of the baby, but the impression is that the child is still very small. Postpartum depression would not be thought of until many years later, but the reader could make a case for the woman having this particular affliction. No matter what was wrong, it is clear that society was ill prepared to deal with illnesses of the mind.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The text of â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper† is a struggle against society within itself. The woman mentions many times that she is not supposed to be writing, and many paragraphs are closed with the quick comment that someone is coming, and thus she must hide her papers away. Part of the woman’s â€Å"cure† was to not write, and being kept from writing, because her husband, â€Å"hates to have me write a word† (Gilman, 288) forces her to become more and more secretive. It could be that this impulse to sneak around and hide her feelings leads to her mental deterioration. It is very clear by the ending of the story that she might not have been crazy before, but the solitude and seclusion in the terrible yellow room pushes her to the very edge of sanity. She speaks of a woman who shares the room with her, but the other woman is trapped behind the wallpaper. While this seems to be a fairly harmless fantasy, she begins to believe that the woman is getting out and roaming around the house (Gilman, 297). Perhaps this is a wish, though through an altered state of mind, to be free and roam as she wished. Frightening enough, the woman seems to improve when she has this â€Å"other† woman to be concerned with (Gilman, 295). She will not tell anyone about this other woman, however, because â€Å"it does not do to trust people too much† (Gilman, 297). This woman is so trapped by the expectations of her society that she cannot feel safe explaining what she sees and how she feels. She is just as stuck as the woman behind the wallpaper.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The more ill the woman gets, the more she begins to see other women in the wallpaper (Gilman, 299).   They are â€Å"creeping† everywhere: behind the wallpaper, around the house, and in the garden. Not one of them is able to risk being seen, so they simply creep around and hide. This, in this writer’s opinion, is Gilman’s statement about all women in her society, ill or not. All women were kept under the thumb of someone, be it a father, husband, brother, or doctor. None of them were able to go out and do exactly what they wished, or be exactly what they wished. Instead, they were forced to move about in secret, not trusting anyone with their most inward feelings. Perhaps this led to the â€Å"hysteria† that men so liked to diagnose. When the woman finally manages to set the â€Å"other woman,† whom she now sees as herself, free, her husband faints with horror (Gilman, 300).   Not only did he faint, but to the woman’s annoyance he faints â€Å"right across (her) pathso that (she) had to creep over him every time!† (Gilman, 300).   Even when she set herself â€Å"free,† she still could not escape from societal ideals completely. She was still forced to â€Å"creep,† but at least she could finally creep over a man. The woman in the story is free because she has lost her mind, but Gilman is free because she can tell the story, even though she must creep around to get to the point. Women are captives of society, and they must do what is necessary to break out.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper† is a story of a woman who goes mad due to her captivity, but it is also the story of many women who were forced into societal roles that they neither wanted or deserved. Husbands are blamed for most of the control of women, but society played a massive part. The time and physical setting of the story, as well as the central conflict of woman against society, is played out in Gilman’s story in an unusual way, but one that resonates even today. Mental illness is still stigmatizing to many people, not just women now, and many women still allow themselves to be pushed into roles they do not want to play by the men in their lives. Even though the story is well over one hundred years old, there are still lessons to be learned from a woman’s decent into madness and rise to mental freedom. It is a shame, however, that the only way to freedom was to lose touch with a world that would not grant it itself. Works Cited Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper†, New England Magazine, 1892.

Causes Of World War I 3 :: essays research papers

There were many immediate and underlying or fundamental causes of World War I. The difference between an underlying and immediate cause is that an underlying cause develops over a long period of time and indirectly leads to a specific event, and an immediate cause is a specific short-term event that directly leads to another event or series of events. While the immediate cause of World War I was the assassination of Francis Ferdinand, the archduke of Austria, by a Serbian member of the Black Hand secret society, there were various basic causes of the war. Three of them were nationalism, alliances between European powers, and militarism. Nationalism is a devotion and loyalty to one’s own nation, with primary emphasis on furthering its interests as opposed to those of other countries. This feeling widely spread throughout Europe during the 19th and 10th centuries and caused many problems. The Slavic people of Bosnia and Herzegovina wanted to break away from Austria-Hungary and unify with other Slavic nations. Russia as a Slavic nation backed up the two countries in this matter, therefore causing tensions between Austria-Hungary and itself. Nationalism was also a source of anger between France and Germany as France resented its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871). Alliances between European nations can also be considered an underlying cause of World War I. As a result of the Triple Alliance consisting of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, the Triple Entente (understanding) was formed between France, Britain, and Russia. Although France and Britain were natural enemies, their fear of Germany united them together with Russia. These alliances set the final stage for the beginning of World War I. Each country in each alliance would help each other during warfare. For example, if Germany attacked France, Britain and Russia would help France, and Italy and Austria would help Germany, dragging Europe into a state of chaos and violence. Militarism was also an underlying cause of World War I. As the alliance system divided Europe into opposing groups, each nation began to increase spending on its military. This set a belligerent mood in Europe as each nation was prepared to fight a war. A German officer once said "in time of peace, prepare for war," and that is exactly what European nations did, eventually leading to the Great War. Without a doubt, the one underlying cause of the three described above that was most responsible for World War I was the system of alliances.

Doll Wife

A Doll’s House Play written by the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen on 1879 (Britannica) brings up various social topics into questions especially during the early 20th century. The topics or themes revolve on gender roles particularly that of women, women’s self fulfillment vs. their constructed roles only limited as a mother and wife and love in marriage.The writer of this play displays many facets of realisms about how women are being treated at times in a male dominated society, which was often illustrated during the early times. Here Ibsen presented the characters’ individuality and how they approach the different facets of societal realisms to illustrate the early dilemmas not just towards women’s position in the society but of human injustices.The play’s story is domestic in scope, primarily because two of the main characters are husband and wife.   Nonetheless, the play did include broader issues.   It showed how society in the 1800s vi ew marriage, the functions assigned to man and wife, and the limitations it gave to women in general.   It is also climactic in structure.The whole play takes place in one setting: in a particular room inside the house which is dominated by Nora’s character. Nora is the main protagonist of the story who initially enjoys being trapped in domestic comfort. She cheerfully goes with the flow on how Torvald, her husband, treats her. But rising events in the play made sudden transformation on Nora’s personality she was changed from a rebellious housewife to an independent woman of society.Nora is forced to pretend to be someone she is not in order to fulfill the role that her father, her husband and the society at large have expected of her. Her unjust conformity though is only realized during her climactic confrontation with Torvald at the end of the play. She eventually admits that she needs to detach herself from things and people that force her to follow societal stand ards.Taking into consideration the social and political attitude of Europe during Ibsen’s time towards women, Nora made a courageous decision to leave her family and walk into an uncertain future examining her life even though she’s aware that the society may not going to support her. The consequences of her decision are very uncertain whether she will succeed or fail as a person after gaining her independence.  However the question whether is it right for Nora to leave her children for the sake of her independence may seem a selfish act for a mother to do. Nora’s clear and impassioned declaration of her bitterness as well as her decision to leave her family seems inappropriate that made the play extremely controversial. Ibsen himself made an alternate ending â€Å"in which Torvald makes Nora takes a last look at their children before leaving and, seeing them, she loses her will to go† (â€Å"A Doll’s House Review†).This manifest that perh aps Ibsen is not advocating radical change the way others would want to believe it but he is just presenting mere realities that is truly apparent during his time. A Doll’s House is not a feminist literature. As a matter of fact Ibsen, the writer, believes in the importance of domestic roles and motherhood but also recognize the significance of exercising individual freedom.Most people may well say that that a woman’s first responsibility is her family and children more importantly, but a woman’s ultimate responsibility as well is herself. Ibsen in this play successfully demonstrates the message that wives and mothers should not stop and be trapped by their domestic roles but should continually discover their true selves, their true strengths and potentials.Women must experience true freedom. Nora in this play represent woman in the midst of society where males often oppresses females, reducing them to mere objects of playthings. That oppression often enslaved t hem restricting them to fully enjoy their individual freedom and eventually their God given potentials.Reference:â€Å"A Doll’s House Review online†. Retrieved on 12 May 2009 from:

Read The Lowest Animal by Mark Twain

Fairly early in his career – with the publication of numerous tall tales, comic essays  and the novels Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn  Ã¢â‚¬â€œÃ‚  Mark Twain earned his reputation as one of Americas greatest humorists. But it wasnt until after his death in 1910 that most readers discovered Twains darker side. Composed in 1896, The Lowest Animal (which has appeared in different forms and under various titles, including Mans Place in the Animal World) was occasioned by the battles between Christians and Muslims in Crete. As editor Paul Baender has observed, The severity of Mark Twains views on religious motivation was part of the increasing cynicism of his last 20 years. An even more sinister force, in Twains view, was the Moral Sense, which he defines in this essay as the quality which enables [man] to do wrong. After clearly stating his thesis in the introductory paragraph, Twain proceeds to develop his argument through a series of comparisons and examples, all of which appear to support his claim that we have reached the bottom stage of development. The Lowest Animal by Mark Twain I have been scientifically studying the traits and dispositions of the lower animals (so-called), and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the result humiliating to me. For it obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals; since it now seems plain to me that the theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one, this new and truer one to be named the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals. In proceeding toward this unpleasant conclusion I have not guessed or speculated or conjectured, but have used what is com ­monly called the scientific method. That is to say, I have sub ­jected every postulate that presented itself to the crucial test of actual experiment, and have adopted it or rejected it according to the result. Thus I verified and established each step of my course in its turn before advancing to the next. These experiments were made in the London Zoological Gardens, and covered many months of painstaking and fatiguing work. Before particularizing any of the experiments, I wish to state one or two things which seem to more properly belong in this place than further along. This in the interest of clearness. The massed experiments established to my satisfaction certain gener ­alizations, to wit: That the human race is of one distinct species. It exhibits slight variations (in color, stature, mental caliber, and so on) due to climate, environment, and so forth; but it is a species by itself, and not to be confounded with any other.That the quadrupeds are a distinct family, also. This fam ­ily exhibits variations – in color, size, food preferences, and so on; but it is a family by itself.That the other families – the birds, the fishes, the insects, the reptiles, etc. – are more or less distinct, also. They are in the procession. They are links in the chain which stretches down from the higher animals to man at the bottom. Some of my experiments were quite curious. In the course of my reading I had come across a case where, many years ago, some hunters on our Great Plains organized a buffalo hunt for the entertainment of an English earl. They had charming sport. They killed seventy-two of those great animals; and ate part of one of them and left the seventy-one to rot. In order to determine the differ ­ence between an anaconda and an earl (if any) I caused seven young calves to be turned into the anacondas cage. The grateful reptile immediately crushed one of them and swallowed it, then lay back satisfied. It showed no further interest in the calves, and no disposition to harm them. I tried this experiment with other anacondas; always with the same result. The fact stood proven that the difference between an earl and an anaconda is that the earl is cruel and the anaconda isnt; and that the earl wantonly destroys what he has no use for, but the anaconda doesnt. This seemed to suggest that the anaconda was not descended from the earl. It also seemed to suggest that the earl was descended from the anaconda, and had lost a good deal in the transition. I was aware that many men who have accumulated more millions of money than they can ever use have shown a rabid hunger for more, and have not scrupled to cheat the ignorant and the helpless out of their poor servings in order to partially appease that appetite. I furnished a hundred different kinds of wild and tame animals the opportunity to accumulate vast stores of food, but none of them would do it. The squirrels and bees and certain birds made accumulations, but stopped when they had gathered a winters supply, and could not be persuaded to add to it either honestly or by chicane. In order to bolster up a tottering reputa ­tion the ant pretended to store up supplies, but I was not de ­ceived. I know the ant. These experiments convinced me that there is this difference between man and the higher animals: he is avaricious and miserly; they are not. In the course of my experiments I convinced myself that among the animals man is the only one that harbors insults and injuries, broods over them, waits till a chance offers, then takes revenge. The passion of revenge is unknown to the higher animals. Roosters keep harems, but it is by consent of their concu ­bines; therefore no wrong is done. Men keep harems but it is by brute force, privileged by atrocious laws which the other sex were allowed no hand in making. In this matter man occupies a far lower place than the rooster. Cats are loose in their morals, but not consciously so. Man, in his descent from the cat, has brought the cats looseness with him but has left the unconsciousness behind (the saving grace which excuses the cat). The cat is innocent, man is not. Indecency, vulgarity, obscenity (these are strictly confined to man); he invented them. Among the higher  animals  there is no trace of them. They hide nothing; they are not ashamed. Man, with his soiled mind, covers himself. He will not even enter a drawing room with his breast and back naked, so alive are he and his mates to indecent suggestion.  Man  is The Animal that Laughs. But so does the monkey, as Mr. Darwin pointed out; and so does the Australian bird that is called the laughing jackass. No!  Man  is the Animal that Blushes. He is the only one that does it or has occasion to. At the head of this  article  we see how three monks were burnt to death a few days ago, and a prior put to death with atrocious cruelty. Do we inquire into the details? No; or we should find out that the prior was subjected to unprintable muti ­lations. Man (when he is a North American Indian) gouges out his prisoners eyes; when he is King John, with a nephew to render untroublesome, he uses a red-hot iron; when he is a reli ­gious zealot dealing with heretics in the Middle Ages, he skins his captive alive and scatters salt on his back; in the first Richards time he shuts up a multitude of Jew families in a tower and sets fire to it; in Columbuss time he captures a family of Spanish Jews and (but  that  is not printable; in our day in England a man is fined ten shillings for beating his mother nearly to death with a chair, and another man is fined forty shillings for having four pheasant eggs in his possession without being able to satisfacto ­rily explain how he got t hem). Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. It is a trait that is not known to the higher animals. The cat plays with the frightened mouse; but she has this excuse, that she does not know that the mouse is suffering. The cat is moderate – unhumanly moderate: she only scares the mouse, she does not hurt it; she doesnt dig out its eyes, or tear off its skin, or drive splinters under its nails – man-fashion; when she is done playing with  it she  makes a sudden meal of it and puts it out of its trouble.  Man  is the Cruel Animal. He is alone in that distinction. The higher animals engage in individual fights, but never in organized masses.  Man  is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and with  calm  pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out, as the Hessians did in our Revolu ­tion, and as the boyish Prince Napoleon did in the Zulu war, and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel. Man  is the only animal that robs his helpless fellow of his country – takes possession of it and drives him out of it or destroys him.  Man  has done this in all the ages. There is not an acre of ground on the globe that is in possession of its rightful owner, or that has not been taken away from owner after owner, cycle after cycle, by force and bloodshed. Man  is the only Slave. And he is the only animal who en ­slaves. He has always been a slave in one form or  another,  and has always held other slaves in bondage under him in one way or another. In our day he is always some mans slave for wages, and does that mans  work; and  this slave has other slaves under him for minor wages, and they do  his  work. The higher animals are the only ones who exclusively do their own work and provide their own living. Man  is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy ex ­pense to grab slices of other  peoples  countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of  his. And in the intervals between cam ­paigns, he washes the blood off his hands and works for the universal brotherhood of man, with his mouth. Man  is the Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Ani ­mal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as  himself,  and cuts his throat if his theology isnt straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brothers path to happiness and heaven. He was at it in the time of the Caesars, he was at it in Mahomets time, he was at it  in  the time of the Inquisition, he was at it in France a couple of cen ­turies, he was at it in England in Marys day, he has been at it ever since he first saw the light, he is at it today in Crete (as per the telegrams quoted above), he will be at it somewhere else tomor ­row. The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out, in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste. Man  is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal. Note his history, as sketched above. It seems plain to me that whatever he is he is not a reasoning animal. His record is the fantastic record of a maniac. I consider that the strongest count against his intelligence is the fact that with that record back of him he blandly sets himself up as the head animal of the lot: whereas by his own standards he is the bottom one. In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which the other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning. Among my experiments was this. In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two  days  I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately. Next, in another  cage  I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Scotch Presbyterian from Aberdeen. Next a Turk from Constantinople; a Greek Christian from Crete; an Armenian; a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas; a Buddhist from China; a Brahman from Benares. Finally, a Salvation Army Colonel from Wapping. Then I stayed away two whole days. When I came back to note results, the cage of Higher Animals was all right, but in the other there was but a chaos of gory odds and ends of turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones – not a specimen left alive. These Reasoning Animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a Higher Court. One is obliged to concede that in true loftiness of character, Man cannot claim to approach even the meanest of the Higher Animals. It is plain that he is constitutionally incapable of  approaching  that altitude; that he is constitutionally afflicted with a Defect which must make such approach forever impossible, for it is manifest that this defect is permanent in him, indestructible, ineradicable. I find this Defect to be the Moral Sense. He is the only animal that has it. It is the secret of his degradation. It is the quality  which enables him to do wrong. It has no other office. It is incapable of performing any other function. It could never hate been intended to perform any other. Without it,  man  could do no wrong. He would rise at once to the level of the Higher Animals. Since the Moral Sense has but the one office, the one capacity -- to enable man to do wrong – it is  plainly  without value to him. It is as valueless to him as is  disease. In fact, it manifestly  is  a disease. Rabies is bad, but it is not so bad as this disease. Rabies enables a man to do a thing, which he could not do when in a healthy state: kill his neighbor with a poisonous bite. No one is the better man for having rabies: The Moral Sense enables a man to do wrong. It enables him to do wrong in a thousand ways. Rabies is an innocent disease, compared to the Moral Sense. No one, then, can be the better man for having the Moral Sense. What now, do we find the Primal Curse to have been? Plainly what it was in the beginning: the infliction upon  man  of the Moral Sense; the ability to distinguish good from evil; and with it, necessarily, the ability to do evil; for there can be no evil act without the presence of consciousness of it in the doer of it. And so I find that we have descended and degenerated, from some far ancestor (some microscopic atom wandering at its pleasure between the mighty horizons of a drop of water perchance) insect by insect, animal by animal, reptile by reptile, down the long highway of  smirchless  innocence, till we have reached the bottom stage of development – nameable as the Human Being. Below us – nothing. Nothing but the Frenchman.