The Coquette and The Awakening show female desire to break the constraints placed on women in the 19th century. In The Coquette, Eliza Wharton is presented with two choices, one man or the other. The option never exists for her to simply not be with a man, to not conform to the societal expectation of women. The Awakening presents Edna Pontellier, a wife and a mother, transforming from the ideal picture of woman to pursuing her own desires. Women’s desire is not only shown from the plot, the lives of Eliza and Edna, but also rhetoric. This rhetoric of female desire is shown throughout the text, not only from the women characters, but through the male characters presented alongside the women. Through male conversation with other males, the rhetoric
…show more content…
Eliza so simply states that she wished to enjoy the pleasurable world before delving into marriage where she may not enjoy such pleasures any longer. The sentence structure then changes to a lengthy rebuttal where Boyer immediately refutes her desires or, “her mistaken ideas of pleasures”. By Boyer responding in such a way, a long list of why Eliza is essentially misguided, he completely shuts down the subject of female desire. The lengthy sentence gives the impression there are a multitude of reasons why being unmarried is unsuitable for a woman. Eliza’s retort begins, “that no one had a right to arraign her conduct”. It is important to note that Eliza is the one with something at stake in this conversation, essentially her freedom, yet Boyer is the one so adamant on convincing her to conform. From the choices Boyer has made in his vocabulary and simply his persistence in the matter, shows that no, he may not be able to arraign Eliza’s conduct, but he absolutely has the ability to illuminate why her desires are not socially acceptable. This interaction of discourse is being relayed to a Mr. T. Selby, one of Boyer’s friends, who of course will find Eliza’s desires just as obscene shown by the simple addressee of the letter, to enlighten Mr. Selby of how the “happy day will be fixed [to be married]” in spite of Eliza’s response against such a thing. Similarly, in The Awakening female desire is pushed aside as a peculiarity or oddness through another example of male
Eliza so simply states that she wished to enjoy the pleasurable world before delving into marriage where she may not enjoy such pleasures any longer. The sentence structure then changes to a lengthy rebuttal where Boyer immediately refutes her desires or, “her mistaken ideas of pleasures”. By Boyer responding in such a way, a long list of why Eliza is essentially misguided, he completely shuts down the subject of female desire. The lengthy sentence gives the impression there are a multitude of reasons why being unmarried is unsuitable for a woman. Eliza’s retort begins, “that no one had a right to arraign her conduct”. It is important to note that Eliza is the one with something at stake in this conversation, essentially her freedom, yet Boyer is the one so adamant on convincing her to conform. From the choices Boyer has made in his vocabulary and simply his persistence in the matter, shows that no, he may not be able to arraign Eliza’s conduct, but he absolutely has the ability to illuminate why her desires are not socially acceptable. This interaction of discourse is being relayed to a Mr. T. Selby, one of Boyer’s friends, who of course will find Eliza’s desires just as obscene shown by the simple addressee of the letter, to enlighten Mr. Selby of how the “happy day will be fixed [to be married]” in spite of Eliza’s response against such a thing. Similarly, in The Awakening female desire is pushed aside as a peculiarity or oddness through another example of male