It"s a stretch of the misandric imagination to assert, as I check out in one woman"s critique, that in this character Steinbeck is characterizing "all womales as nothing but trouble and are the downfevery one of man". That"s choose saying that because an artist paints a rattlesnake through poisonous fangs, all snakes are to be regarded as dangerous pit vipers. It"s faulty logic.Curleys wife is simply one form of female. Only the individual reader deserve to judge to what level her traits are self-illuminating. That"s not the writer"s project.Does the claim of sexism in Curley"s wife aclimb because the story is created by a man? Does male authorial sex specify it as sexist? Is female villainany kind of the exclusive domain of female authors? Is the temptress a figment of men"s imagination? Do woguys not usage their sexuality and also guile to exert power over males to counterbalance their physical might?When a male author"s depiction of female villainy is dismissed as sexism, it is sexism in reverse. It denies male authors the right of full imaginative expression and denies readers of both genders the complete expression of the reality of their life experience. It"s censorship by intimidation.Curley"s wife is the catalyst that turns the story right into an effective drama. She"s arguably the the majority of under-rated, under-well-known character in all of Amerideserve to literary works. Everyone"s so concentrated on George and Lennie and also Curley and also Candy that Curley"s wife gets hardly noticed as she comes and also goes, flitting in and out of the bunkresidence, the stables and Crooks" room, all places she does not belong, trying to gain some attention. No one trusts her, least of all her husband also.She kbrand-new Lennie was mentally tested and also that he"d just killed a pup by misdealing with it, yet she was so starved for attention that she was blinded to the signals that would certainly have made one more woguy mindful. The just method she knew just how to relate to guys was through her sexuality, and also it was that which result in her damage. This fatal character flegislation provides her an utterly fascinating character. Claire Luce had actually some trouble playing her function on Broadway and also asked Steinbeck for some guidance. Here"s what Steinbeck wrote her in a letter dated 1938. It"s evident in the letter that the character is based on someone Steinbeck knew well:"She prospered up in an environment of fighting and also suspicion. Quite early she learned that she need to never before trust any kind of one yet was never before able to carry out what she learned. A natural trustfulness damaged with constantly and also every time it did, she gained hurt. Her moral training was most rigid. She was told over and over that she must reprimary a virgin because that was the only way she could get a husband also. ...It would have actually been impossible to seduce her. She had just that one point to sell and also she kbrand-new it....she was trained by danger not just at residence however by other kids. And any kind of present of fear or weakness carried an prompt persecution. She learned she had actually to be hard to cover her fright. ...She is a nice, type girl and also not a floozy. No man has actually ever taken into consideration her as anypoint other than a girl to attempt to make. She has never before talked to a guy other than in the sex-related fencing conversation. She is not very sexed specifically however knows instinctively that if she is to be noticed at all, it will certainly be because some one finds her sexually desirable.As to her actual sexual life--she has had none except via Curley and tright here has actually probably been no consummation there since Curley would certainly not consider her gratification and also would most likely be suspicious if she had actually any. Consequently she is a tiny starved. She knows utterly nothing around sex except the mass of misinformation girls tell one an additional. ...Her craving for call is enormous but she, through her background, is incapable of conceiving any kind of contact without some sex-related context."If Steinbeck knew all this at the moment he was writing the novel, why didn"t he flesh out the character more? It would certainly have actually taken the story to another level. As is, she"s two-dimensional. We do not recognize her, so we do not care that a lot when she dies.The answer lies probably in the truth that his summary to Clare Luce is a different variation from the one in the book, as the stage variation was softened to draw a larger audience.Per Jay Parini"s biography of Steinbeck: "Steinbeck defined that she is "not a perkid, she"s a symbol. She has no function, except to be a foil – and a danger to Lennie.""Steinbeck didn"t feel the need to better construct Curley"s wife. Both she and also Curley are fairly flat, 2 dimensional. But by the finish of the book we know his wife better than we perform Curley, the ostensible villain. Perhaps Steinbeck was conserving the privilege of the fully arisen female villain for the character Cathy in East of Eden.Steinbeck is accsupplied of being sexist for failing to name Curley"s wife. He has actually nopoint to obtain by being sexist; so why would certainly he commit such an obvious blunder? On the contrary, denying her a name merely draws attention to her, making her the neon foil, eliciting plot crucial actions from various other personalities.Let"s be clear, an author should not be concerned as sexist for accurately portraying the sexism of the times.
You are watching: Sexism in of mice and men
See more: What Are The Continents And Oceans Through What Oceans Does The Equator Pass Es?
In the mid-1930s, womales and guys had actually directly identified duties and both struggled within them as best they can. Describing it accurately is to be applauded, not condemned or dismissed as sexist.Mankind does not learn from its mistakes by hiding them.