Feminist’s Analysis on Chaucer’s Character: The Wife of Bath
I found that the way Chaucer portrayed the character of the Wife of Bath was extremely interesting. She wasn’t a feeble-minded character as society thought women to be at that time but instead complex and ideally strong-minded.
So I did a little digging and found a Feminists Analysis of the prologue on this particular story.
Chaucer did write in satire so it leaves me to question, should we take this character seriously? Or is just simply an exaggeration of what women in the time were not but wanted to be?
– Amanda
Blogging British Literature 
Firstly, thanks for sharing this article. There are so many different approaches to what I would call “feminism”, and though I call myself one, I don’t agree with this writer’s approach.
I think the Wife of Bath IS a feminist hero. The fact that she’s even talking in an age when women had virtually no voice outside of the household proves that she is one. The author argues that she cannot be held as a feminist hero because she uses the men in her life to her own gain. So let’s see here: in a time when women were completely unable to earn their own living or inherit it, this woman is smart enough to find the loopholes in the system and live contently. She makes her own life, rather than having men make it for her. The author condemns her for being manipulative – I’d just say she’s wicked intelligent. Also, the author points out that she’s using her sexuality to make these gains. The Wife of Bath lives in a time when a woman’s character is reduced to her vagina. It’s a fact. We lived to please men and make sons. Her only tool to make any kind of success in her world is her sexuality. She recognizes her power as a sexual woman and she uses it to make amazing gains.
Certain feminists hold that for women to be truly empowered, they have to detach themselves and not fall in love. Contrarily, the author of this article argues that the Wife of Bath is not a feminist icon because she detaches herself from sex (even though she does claim to be in love with one of her husbands.) Obviously there are many viewpoints on every issue, but my personal idea of an “empowered woman” is a woman who chooses whether she wants to manipulate men for sexual favours or to fall in love or to sleep with a bunch of guys or to have one partner for her whole life – the point being that SHE CHOOSES to do what she does.
The last paragraph in the article also bothers me. The author says that the Wife of Bath is not a feminist hero because she doesn’t try to make big, “revolutionary” changes to the lives of women. But that’s just the point: she can’t. For thousands of years, the home has been the only place that women actually have a bit of influence. In medieval England, certainly, it was the only arena where women could make a change. I think that for her cultural context, the Wife of Bath is doing a fucking amazing job of being an empowered woman. She’s choosing what she does and that’s what “women’s rights” or “feminism” is all about.
Was Chaucer a feminist? That term wasn’t even invented yet, so no, he wasn’t. But I think he did recognize that women’s voices are important as well, or else he wouldn’t have included the Wife of Bath character in his Tales.
Women, at least those exceptional women, could earn a living in those times. Female doctors, ladies of the land, and other such professions that weren’t a men’s only role (Knights, Lawyers, Clergy) could have women in leading roles, though it was rare. More so, just because the term was invented doesn’t mean Chaucer could be a feminist. I do agree he isn’t, but he acknowledges the women as a person instead of as a wife or a pseudo-posession, and at the least should be considered a forerunner.