by: Tiffany Tzeng
In Charlotte Perkins Stetson’s “The Yellow Wallpaper,” the narrator Jane spirals into insanity as she undergoes the rest cure—a period of forced isolation and inactivity. Significantly, this treatment is prescribed and enforced by her husband, John, who like other late-nineteenth-century physicians, believed the rest cure could treat Jane’s “slight hysterical tendency” (Stetson 648). In this short essay, I will identify the ways individual men perpetuated women’s oppression in the late 1800s and early 1900s by analysing John and Jane’s relationship as a case study. Specifically, men perpetuated women’s oppression by (1) discrediting women in the form of Fricker’s testimonial injustice and (2) isolating women as suggested in Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
John’s power over Jane reflects the systematic discrimination of women in this time period. For John is an example of a typical, loving husband who is situated within a patriarchal social context. That is, John dominates Jane because his male-dominated society entitles him to do so. Specifically, society perpetuates gender norms that relegate women to inferior roles: the ideal woman “is a perfect and enthusiastic housekeeper, and hopes for no better profession” (Stetson 650). While I acknowledge that there are differing interpretations of “The Yellow Wallpaper,” it is not within my scope to defend my particular feminist reading as the best reading. Rather I seek only to identify how Jane and John’s relationship can illustrate how individual men perpetuate systematic oppression of women.
Discrediting women in the form of Fricker’s testimonial injustice
First, John perpetuates Jane’s oppression by regularly dismissing her opinions: he “laughs” at Jane’s opinions as if they were nonsense (Stetson 647and 649). Indeed, Jane has serious postpartum depression, but John “does not believe [Jane is] sick” for “he knows there is no reason to suffer” (Stetson 647 and 649). As such, John only recognizes Jane’s suffering as a “slight hysterical tendency” (Stetson 648). Thus he decides on Jane’s behalf that the rest cure is the best treatment even though Jane believes “that congenial work, with excitement and change, would do [her] good” (Stetson 648).
In other words, Jane experiences testimonial injustice—when a speaker’s credibility is unwarrantedly undermined by a hearer’s negative stereotypes regarding the speaker’s social identity (Dotson 26). In this case, John is automatically disinclined to believe Jane due to the negative stereotypes he holds against women. Specifically, he believes that women are childishly guided by silly “fancies” rather than reason (Stetson 649 and 652). This belief is exemplified by his use of “little girl” and “blessed little goose” as terms of endearment (Stetson 649 and 652). Additionally, John reprimands Jane with a “stern reproachful look” the way an adult reprimands a child (Stetson 652). From this, it seems that John’s belief that women are childishly irrational hinders his ability to perceive the credibility of Jane’s testimony. As a result, Jane is resigned to obeying John because “what is one to do?” when one’s word is never believed (Stetson 648). In this way, John’s dismissal of Jane’s beliefs perpetuates her subordinate role—an obedient subject to her wise commander.
Isolating women as suggested in Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Second, John perpetuates Jane’s oppression by isolating her. That is, John ensures that Jane cannot seek unity and solidarity amongst women with shared experiences—those who also suffered from being misdiagnosed and coerced into the rest cure. Here, I draw from Freire’s “Divide and Rule” from Pedagogy of the Oppressed: “[the oppressor] must divide [the oppressed] and keep [them] divided in order to remain in power” (Freire 141). This is because a united group of oppressed individuals can organize resistance movements to overthrow their oppressors (Freire 145). In this case, if Jane were to unite with women in similar situations, then Jane—as part of this collective—is more likely to understand the injustice she faces and thus fight against it.
Specifically, John perpetuates Jane’s oppression by physically confining her to the mansion they live in together. Within the home, Jane is primarily kept in an “atrocious nursery” with “barred windows” and an “immovable bed” (Stetson 649– 650). In this space, Jane regularly interacts with only John and his sister Jenny—who is more of a housekeeper than a companion. On the rare occasion that others visit their home, John maintains tight control over who comes over when. In one case, “John thought it might do [Jane] good to see a little company, so [they] just had mother and Nellie and the children down” (Stetson 650). However, in another case John “would as soon put fireworks in [Jane’s] pillow-case as to let [her] have [certain] stimulating people about now” (Stetson 649). Because Jane is isolated in this way, she is not only unable to unite with other oppressed women, but she is also deprived of the type of companionship that seems necessary for a healthy, rewarding life.
Jane’s insanity as a result of her sustained oppression
I have thus far illustrated how John perpetuates Jane’s oppression through testimonial injustice and forced isolation. Furthermore, I have suggested that John should be seen as an example of how men in general perpetuate systematic oppression of women. To conclude, I will highlight how damaging this systematic oppression is to individual women by describing Jane’s descent into insanity. Because Jane is alone with her invalidated thoughts, she begins hallucinating a woman trapped behind her nursery’s wallpaper and “[wants] to get out” (Stetson 652). Feeling sympathy for this woman, Jane tears down the wallpaper to free this woman and, in doing so, becomes this woman. Consequently, she addresses John as “young man” and tells him, "I've got out at last … in spite of you and Jane” (Stetson 656). As a result of this oppression, Jane ceased to be Jane. Indeed, women in the late 1800s and early 1900s suffered greatly from the oppression that ensnared them: they could not “climb through that pattern [of oppression]…the pattern strangles them off and turns them upside down” (Stetson 654).
References:
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th anniversary ed, Continuum, 2000.
Kristie Dotson. “A Cautionary Tale: On Limiting Epistemic Oppression.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, vol. 33, no. 1, 2012, p. 24. Crossref, doi:10.5250/fronjwomestud.33.1.0024.
Perkins Stetson, Charlotte. “The Yellow Wall-Paper.” U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://www.nlm.nih.gov/theliteratureofprescription/exhibitionAssets/digitalDocs/The-Yellow-Wall-Paper.pdf.