Seminar Paper

Feminist Discord: Male Overtones in Shelley’s Frankenstein


Many readers of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein cannot help but notice the reticence of the female characters and the dominance of the male voice. The creation of inefficient and somewhat static female characters is in itself unusual for a woman writer who is not only unconventional, but is also the heiress of a feminist legacy inherited from her mother Mary Wollstonecraft, author of “The Vindication of the Rights of Women” published in 1792. Still, a feminist reading within Frankenstein is possible, yet I suggest examining it from the vantage point that it was written under a male nom-de-plum, as an attempt to conceal the author’s femininity, thus it makes sense that Mary Shelly would not try reveal her identity by expressing feminine sentiments. Taking Frankenstein at face value, it can be argued that it is a novel which conveys male viewpoints and values by diminishing overall female significance by confining women into stereotypes, constructing gender, imposing compulsory heterosexuality, and disrupting female camaraderie; all in spite of Mary Shelley’s feminist heirloom.

According to Gilbert and Gubar, the woman writer is culturally conditioned by patriarchal society which assigns her an inferior status and dubs her the “other” (1930). The dilemma of the creative woman in the 19th and early 20th century was in her alienation from male forerunners and apprehension of male readers; simultaneous with her yearning for a feminine tradition of writing as well as a female audience (1930-31). Rather than overcoming this “anxiety of authorship” and finding her voice among other 19th century feminist writers, Mary Shelley writes under a male standard that reinforces sexist stereotypes of women. These stereotypes tend to form in oppositions that sum up women in very minimalist terms that are not a reflection of reality but a projection of patriarchate values (Beauvoir 1266-67). A woman claimed for home (the mother, sister, wife, and daughter) occupies the myth of an angel- altruistic, benevolent, and surrounded by a delightful heavenly aura. In Frankenstein, the women of Victor’s family home are represented in such manner. Victor’s mother, to begin with, was a faithful daughter that took care of her father with “the greatest tenderness” and dedication (Shelley 18). It is this devotion that makes her a desirable wife for Victor’s father who “like a protecting spirit” takes her into his care (Shelley 19). The image of her kneeling by the coffin of her dead father, like a praying nun kneeling at the altar, very much impressed Victor’s father and transfixed in his mind, to the extent that he has it painted and hung with “an air of dignity and beauty” over the mantelpiece of his house. The beauty in this portrait lies in the fact that even after the death of the patriarch, the woman continues to uphold his values by literally not raising above her subservient and inferior position, which is represented by kneeling. For a society to identify a woman this way is to “guarantee to man the absolute rights in her devotion” (Beauvoir 1267). The nun-like daughter then becomes the saintly mother, whose benevolence and affection entreats her to attend her sick orphan niece, risking her own life in the process. Victor describes that even “on her death-bed the fortitude and benignity of this admirable woman did not desert her” as she encouraged Victor and Elisabeth’s union, and bequeaths Elisabeth her place in the family (24).

Elisabeth, likewise, satisfies the myth of the angel- or the “ideal” woman that is, from early childhood, beautiful and of a “gentle and affectionate disposition” and “docile and good-tempered” (Shelley 19). Henceforth Elisabeth is completely subjected to Victor’s narration and assessment, to which he fails to see her outside of the myth. There is also something patronizing and superior in Victor’s attitude towards her. He strips a part of her humanity by describing her as “playful as an insect,” “lively as a bird’s”, “fragile creature,” whom he loved to tend on as “a favourite animal” (Shelley 19-20). The way that Victor visions Elisabeth is shallow and periphery as he further describes her “person as the image of her mind”, so transparent is she that he knows her from inside and out. Nonetheless, Beauvoir contends that it is almost impossible for men to speak of the inner self and existence of a woman, which in turn makes his sentiments shallow and imaginary (1269). Therefore, the only way to distinguish between the imaginary and real is by “behavior”, in which a man actively shows his support for a woman, by marriage, gifts, or even spending time with a woman, all which she accepts passively (1269). This contradiction between a man’s imagination and actions is seen in the way Victor neglects Elisabeth for almost six years, despite his professions of love and admiration, while she faithfully waits for him to take the initiative, and is ready to sacrifice her happiness for his. It is also seen by the way he carelessly lets her out of his sight on their wedding night, although the Creature vehemently threatened to be there, and has a history of hurting the ones around Victor, rather than Victor himself. For Victor to claim that Elisabeth’s murder was unforeseen is a feeble excuse, and one might doubt Victor’s love for his cousin who was indirectly responsible for his mother’s death. One also suspects the double meaning of Victor’s words before his wedding: “Alas! To me the idea of an immediate union with my cousin was one of horror and dismay. I was bound by a solemn promise which..[I] dared not break” (Shelley 104). Although these words directly relate to Victor’s promise of creating a mate for the Creature, they might be suggestive of Victor’s subconscious abhorrence of marrying his cousin. Nonetheless, even in her death, Elisabeth reinforces innocence, the virgin bride sacrificed for her husband’s sins.

Conversely, the Creature’s bride that Victor begins to create is rendered a mysterious monster that might even surpass the evil-doing of Victor’s original Creature. Conveying a male point of view, for Victor “the enigma is presented in its most disturbing form in woman” (Beauvoir 1268). Since he is the one shaping the female creature’s existence, he claims to know her inner self in assuming that “she might become ten thousand times more malignant than her mate, and delight, for its own sake, in murder and wretchedness” (Shelley 114).Victor is further horrified by the female creature’s sexuality in her having the ability to procreate, in which “a race of devils would be propagated on the earth” (Shelley 114). He is also faced with the dilemma of the ugly female, as his Creature asks for a mate that is as hideous as him. This female ugliness is associated with masculinity, therefore rendering female masculinity as “completely abject, aesthetically displeasing, and uninhabitable position” (Halberstam 2649). Victor might also harbor a fear that the female creature in her feminine masculinity would disrupt the patriarchal social order by being a lesbian. According to Halberstam, “lesbianism has long been associated with female masculinity;” this is, in turn, linked to female ugliness (2650). If it is probable for the female creature to spurn her mate when faced with “the superior beauty of man,” it is also possible for her to be attracted to women in the same homoerotic way the Creature is attracted to Victor (Shelley 114).

Furthermore, the Creature meant to make the female creature his equal, his companion, and not a subservient “other” or inferior. That would change the male attitude toward the female, in a way empowering her that was usually powerless. Victor could not handle the idea that he would be the one to subvert the patriarchal system by the race he created. For a true woman to be feminine, she must make herself the “other” in male-female relationships (Beauvoir 1272). In being isolated from human society, forming a league of their own, the Creature and his female mate are not likely to abide by the patriarchal norms that determine the male-female relationship. For Victor this female creature is two times the “other”, the first being that she is an abnormal agglomeration of deceased bodies’ constituting a deformed race, the second being that she is a female. Nonetheless, Butler argues that gender is a fabrication inscribed upon the surface of bodies. Therefore, the second creature Victor is working on is essentially genderless; still she is to be created as an imitation of a woman, precisely like a drag. For Butler, drag is a performative act that inverts the appearance of the socially constructed gender (2549-50). Thus, the existence female creature might upset the established notion of femininity, in which women are delicate,beautiful, and small. According to Butler, “all social systems are vulnerable at their margins, and that all margins are accordingly considered dangerous” (2545). Hence, Victor feels that it is his duty to mankind to destroy the female creature and deprive her existence.

Another issue that affects femininity in Frankenstein, regardless of the angel/monster opposition, is that both the Elisabeth and the female creature are subjected to patriarchal norms that enforce what Rich calls “compulsory heterosexuality,” which is manifested in arranged marriages and the breaking up of the “lesbian continuum” (1594-95, 1604). Both Elisabeth and the female creature are destined to unions for which they practically do not have a say in. From her early childhood, Victor’s parents have already decided that Elisabeth be the future wife of their son. Victor also realizes that the female creature “might refuse to comply with a compact made before her creation” (Shelley114). It is as if the existence of the female is solely for the benefit of her male counterpart. According to Rich, imposing female heterosexuality establishes men’s right to emotional, physical, and economical access to women (1602). Hence, patriarchal society is suspicious of female companionship or the lesbian continuum, and will go through efforts to dissolve it. For instance, Elisabeth more than once admits to Victor that she loves Justine tenderly, the latter being pretty, affectionate, and kind, much like Elisabeth herself. Elisabeth even expresses her desire to die with Justine to escape “from a world which is hateful to [her] and the visages of men which [she] abhor[s]” (Shelley 56). During their emotionally charged ( perhaps sexually) farewell, Victor’s heart is filled with “horrid anguish”, allegedly for being responsible for the death of an innocent person, yet he passively lets Justine die when he is the only one who can save her by incriminating the Creature he made. It is likely that Victor was threatened by the relationship and intimacy between Elisabeth and Justine, therefore he permits Justine to die.

To conclude, one cannot consider it outrageous that Frankenstein at one time was thought to be a work of a man rather than a woman, although for an altogether different reason. One might also question how much an influence Percy Shelley, Mary’s husband, had in influencing her work. The male-centric attitudes in the novel deem it a construct of patriarchal society in the way it encourages female stereotyping of the angel or monster. Furthermore, the female acts only as an object that satisfies the various needs of the male. The female is also forced into a heterosexual way of life, to the extent that female relationships are discontinued. Thus, femininity in the novel occupies an insignificant space within male-dominated outlooks, manners, and mindsets.


Works Cited:

Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 2540 – 2553.

De Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 1423 – 1437.

Gilbert, Sandra M., Gubar, Susan. “The Madwoman in the Attic.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 1926 – 1938.

Halberstam, Judith. “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Men, Women, and Masculinity.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 2638 – 2653.

Rich, Adrienne. Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 1591 – 1609.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Ed J. Paul Hunter. New York: Norton, 1996.