This poem has a lot
of sapphic feeling to it, which is what the two authors were going for. I find
it interesting how they state their feelings about men. They state “Men I defy,
allure, estrange, prostrate, make bond or free” (Lines 2-3) This shows the role
reversal they have for men. In most heterosexual relationships in the Victorian
era the man was the dominating person. The relationship was dependent on him
and often the woman was taught to be ‘helpless’ without him. According to
victorian-era, “The patriarchal
system was the norm and women usually led a more secluded, private life. Men,
on the other hand, possessed all kinds of freedom. The man was naturally the
head of the family and the guardian of family members.” These lines show
the opposite though. They defy men, they manipulate men, and they turn the men
to the submissive side of the relationship. They do this without changing their
own gender to man, they are still women and they are dominant. In this poem,
there is a lot of contrast from heterosexual relationships to lesbian
relationships. When talking about women, the authors make you feel soft and
sweet. “To you I sing my love’s refrain; between us is no thought of pain,
peril, satiety.” (Lines 5-7) This shows that when two women are together, they
are truly free, they have no feelings of pain or peril. With heterosexual
relationships though, Bradley and Cooper state that “Soon odth a lover’s
patience tire, but ye to mainfold desire can yield response, ye know.” (lines
8-10) In the Victorian era, it seems that women were trapped to become married
to men because the law made it impossible for women to make any money
independently. Olga Zeltser states
“Because society prevented women from making their own living, there was an
inescapable dependence upon men’s income.” This seems to show the struggle of
loving another woman in a society that does not agree with that. It shows that
the love of two women in this world they created is loving and soft, while the
love of a man and a woman isn’t so loving as it’s filled with sexual desire and
the idea of falling out of love. To these women, a lesbian relationship seems
so much better because they like each other and they are as free as can be.
There is no dominating figure. This brings on the idea that love is much more
than roles and who works or who cooks, it’s a deep feeling of freedom when you
are together. This deepens the question of how love was perceived back in the
victorian times. There were heterosexual couples that loved each other, but how
many people got married to each other because they thought that getting married
was the correct thing to do? Would they have considered that to be love back
then? I would argue that comparing that kind of love to love in 2019, that kind
of love isn’t actually love. It is just filling a role that needed to be filled
and is seen as doing your ‘duty’. Love is much deeper than duty, and that’s
what the poem is ultimately about. Both women adore each other and see love as
love, and letting go of the heterosexual ideals that had been forced upon them
let them have that freedom. The freedom to love the person you really do love.
Work Cited
“Gender
Roles of Victorian Era for Men and Women.” Victorian
Era Life in England. Victorians Society & Daily Life, victorian-era.org/gender-roles-of-victorian-era.html.
Zeltser,
Olga. “Victorian Women: The Gender of Oppression .” Historical
Analysis: Women as the
"the Sex" During the Victorian Era, webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/tempmotherhood/fall2003/3/HisPage.html.
Hi Dakota,
ReplyDeleteThis is a really great and in-depth analysis! The difference in tone for each type of relationship (heterosexual and lesbian) is definitely distinct and shows the author’s sentiments toward each. I hadn’t really considered how gender roles are tied to duties and expectations, and that eliminating the roles can allow for more freedom. I also like the subversion of gender roles that you’ve pointed out—how the woman manipulates men while they still think they hold all the power.
Lauren P.