Freedom At Any Cost; Escape From Oppression In Story Of An Hour, The Yellow Wall Paper, A Rose For Emily, And Sweat:

 The female characters of Story Of An Hour, The Yellow Wall Paper, A Rose For Emily And Sweat, utilize madness, suicide, withholding of aid, and murder as means of regaining freedom from their male oppressors.

In Story Of An Hour by Kate Chopin, Louise Mallard commits suicide to escape the oppressive societal norms perpetuated by her husband Brently. In The Yellow Wall Paper by Charlotte Perkins Gillman, the significantly nameless narrator embraces insanity in order to free herself from the control her husband John, holds over her. Emily Grierson, in A Rose For Emily by William Faulkner, kills her would-be-lover Homer Barron as a means of breaking a cycle of abuse set in motion by her father, and sustained by the patriarchal chauvinism of southern society. Similarly, Delia of Zora Neale Hurston’s Sweat, escapes from abuse by withholding aid from her husband; effectively committing the perfect murder.

In A Rose For Emily, Emily is the unquestionable victim of abuse.  Raised in the patriarchal and chauvinistic southern society, Emily’s entire life has been controlled by her overbearing father.  Emily is completely dominated by her father in her upbringing, and the society in which she lives encourages such.  Faulkner makes this clear to the reader when he states, “Miss Emily a slender figure in white in the background, her father a spraddled silhouette in the foreground, his back to her and clutching a horsewhip, the two of them framed by the back-flung front door”.  This depiction of male authority and power renders Emily as meek, small, and completely dominated. According to Du Fang, “Patriarchal chauvinism means that it is the father who enjoys the power of deciding every family affair”.  Mr. Grierson does just that, especially in regards to Emily’s love life.  Mr. Grierson denies Emily exposure to normal human relationships and cripples her ability to interact socially by continuously chasing away any man who calls upon her as a young woman.  The narrator recounts,  “We remembered all the young men her father had driven away” (Faulkner). Patriarchal Chauvinism instructed that women remain submissive to men. They were discriminated against and dominated by male figures. Emily’s father abuses traditions of patriarchal society in order to keep Emily as his “personal possession” (Du Fang).  By isolating her, he renders Emily incapable of living a life without him. Emily has been denied the ability to create and maintain human relationships and is therefore solely dependent upon her father. Emily’s father “deliberately makes her lonely, afraid, so he can dominate her completely and becomes her only security, her only master, her only world” (Du Fang). 

When Mr. Grierson dies, Emily is not freed from his oppression, but continues to live under his supremacy.  Faulkner tells his reader, “…we knew that with nothing left, she would have to cling to that which had robbed her (her father), as people will”.  As a result, Emily “…told them (the towns people) that her father was not dead” (Faulkner) and is reluctant to give up his body.  Emily is incapable of letting go of her only security, and collapses under the trauma of living without her father.  As her contorted mental state begins to deteriorate further, she struggles with the abandonment of her father’s death.

As a result, Emily replaces her father figure with her lover Homer Barron. Jack Scherting's Freudian interpretation of A Rose For Emily suggests that Emily’s abusive upbringing results in permanent distortions of her character. "The Oedipal desires expressed in Emily's affair with Homer were never recognized by the people of Jefferson, and Emily herself was aware of them only as subconscious longings" (Scherting).  However, when Emily discovers that “Homer himself had remarked--he liked men, and it was known that he drank with the younger men in the Elks' Club--that he was not a marrying man” (Faulkner) she is forced to re-live the abandonment she experienced upon her father’s death and cannot handle the possibility of Homer Barron leaving her.  Emily’s fear, coupled with her fragmented mental state, causes her to create a delusional reality in which Homer never leaves her. To accomplish this, “Emily takes the offensive by poisoning Homer so he can't abandon her” (Donald). By killing Homer Barron, Emily effectively breaks the cycle of her oppressive, abusive life. Emily turns the tables on her father as well as southern society by exerting the ultimate control over Homer and literally keeping him has her personal possession. Eternally bound to Emily’s bed, Homer’s corpse remains dominated by Emily.  Homer replaces Emily’s father and becomes her new security; a security that can never abandon her as her father did. However, Emily’s new security is introverted. She becomes Homer’s master, strips him of all free will and keeps him in a submissive state. As a result, Emily refuses the behavior dictated by her society and frees her self from her father’s oppression.

Many readers and critics view Emily as a dangerous, calculating monster (with good reason!) however, others argue that Faulkner himself believed her to be a product of her environment and a victim of society. (Donald) Faulkner often refers to Emily as an “idol” and even places a metaphorical rose upon her grave with his choice of title for the short story. Faulkner “characteristically mingles compassion and judgment. Even his most terrible villains . . .he treats with considerable sympathy” (Minter).

Another victim of abuse, who is often the subject of literary sympathy, is the nameless narrator of Gilman’s The Yellow Wall Paper. Like Emily, the narrator is oppressed by a male figure as well as by society. However, this woman does not resort to murder to find her freedom, but deliberately accepts insanity to achieve mental liberation. 

The narrator is completely oppressed and controlled by her physician and husband, John. She states, “I have a schedule prescription for each hour in the day; he takes all care from me” (Gilman).  This woman is not permitted exert herself in any manner.  Her husband refuses to let her write, and therefore suppresses any creative outlet she might gain from. She is forbidden to participate in household duties (such as entertaining guests or caring for her child) “Of course I didn't do a thing. Jennie sees to everything now” (Gilman).  Additionally, John refuses to let the narrator leave the vacation home at any time despite her requests.  “I tried to have a real earnest reasonable talk with him the other day, and tell him how I wish he would let me go and make a visit to Cousin Henry and Julia.
But he said I wasn't able to go, nor able to stand it after I got there”(Gilman). John effectively denies the narrator any mental stimulation by placing her under a medically ordered house arrest, which borders on complete imprisonment.  

John further abuses his wife by subjecting her to panopticism.  Panopticism is a social theory developed by Michel Foucault based on a panopticon; a panopticon is defined as “A prison so constructed that the inspector can see each of the prisoners at all times, without being seen” (Merriam Webster).   In his analysis of panopticism, John Bak states,  “…The Panopticon developed into an unscrupulous method of inquisition that perpetuated fear and bred paranoia. Like the room that confines Gilman's narrator, the Panopticon proved to be not a utopia for prisoners, mental patients, and schoolboys, but "a cruel, ingenious cage" (Foucault 205) that misjudged human reaction to unabated surveillance”. 

John subjects the narrator to a panoptic reality by taking her to a vacation home in the isolated countryside, insisting she stay (against her wishes) in the attic nursery with bars on the windows, monitoring her every move, and restricting her world to the confines of the house (Bak).  John justifies his oppressive decisions to his wife by telling her, “…whether you can see it or not… I am a doctor, dear, and I know” (Gilman). 

As a result of John’s compounded abuses, the narrator inevitably descends into paranoid madness.  However, the narrator’s insanity is not a submissive response to her husband’s cruelty, but a desperate attempt to emancipate herself as she “resists the interiorization of authority” (Knight).  She escapes her panoptic prison by allowing herself to live in delusion. The narrator denies the reality of her life and embraces lunacy, therefore gaining control and freedom. “John's wife/patient/prisoner ultimately transcends all levels of consciousness, hence denies the Panopticon's reality upon her and thereby eliminates its control… In objectifying herself through this imaginary woman (in the wall paper), the narrator can free herself, if only in mind, from the external prison her husband places her in” (Bak). The narrator reclaims her life and refuses to give others the ability to define who or what she is. “…she is, for the first time, devoid of that identity that her husband (and his patriarchal society) had inscribed upon her” (Bak).

Louis Mallard’s husband Brently Mallard, In Story Of An Hour by Kate Chopin, uses similar techniques as John to oppress his wife and confine her to their home. Brently uses Louise’s medical heart condition to insist she lead a life void of mental or physical stimulation. Although Brently does not subject Louise to panopticism, he imprisons her by denying her the freedom to make her own decisions.  However, society and the institution of marriage in the late nineteenth century play a larger role in Louise’s oppression than Brently himself. Women in this time period were expected to remain submissive and obedient of their husbands. They were valued for their place in the kitchen and in the home. Society’s expectations bind Louise to her husband and suppress her desires of becoming an independent, female individual. Louise’s heart condition is a symbol of her societal disability. Her physical impairment parallels her crippled status as a woman in contrast to her ‘healthy’ husband.  Louise’s heart condition forces her to be physically dependent on her husband for medical care in the same way she is dependent upon him for her place in society.  Although Brently is genuinely kind to Louise and she herself describes him as “…the face that had never looked save with love upon her..” (Chopin), he ascribes to his society’s afflicted perception of women and perpetuates Story Of An Hour’s theme of oppression. Louise cries, or talks about crying for most of the short story.  This recurrent motif of weeping depicts Louise’s desolate imprisonment within the walls of her society. She is constantly laden with the expectations her husband and society hold her to. Louise is suffering from the realization that she has lost herself and is solely defined by her marriage to Brently.

Upon news of her husband’s death, Louise weeps with “wild abandonment” (Chopin) however, this appears to be nothing more than a programmed reflex and she very quickly settles into an uncharacteristic calm. As Louise reflects in her armchair, symbols of spring and the open window foreshadow her realization of freedom and reclamation of self.  Through the open window Louise experiences all the opportunities her new life has to offer her. Depictions of the blue, open sky represent the limitless possibilities Louise now has for her life. Treetops, new spring life, bird song and the scent of fresh rain all depict the rebirth of Louise. She has become free to operate in her society as an individual; she quickly realizes she may now “Live for herself…There would be no powerful will bending hers”. Louise “abandon(s) herself a little” (Chopin) as she discards her former self and ascribed position to grasp hold of her new found freedom. As a widow in society, Louise is now free to make her own choices, control her own financial matters, and to turn down any other man who tries to assume an oppressive position over her. For the first time in the story, Louise stops crying and her misery is replaced with utter joy.  Before Louise grasps hold of this freedom, she is referred to by Chopin as “Mrs. Mallard”. It is only after Louise accepts her new reality and position as an independent woman in society that the reader becomes aware of her individual name.

            When Brently enters the home, very much alive and well, oppression is forced back upon Louise. In an instant, she realizes she must once again suppress who she is and what she wants for herself, and replace it with the desires Brently and society have for her. Louise is faced with re-accepting the part of herself she has abandoned. Her freedom is taken away from her as quickly as it arrived “out of the sky” (Chopin).  As a prisoner who has tasted the sweet joys of freedom, Louise cannot accept the reality of retracted emancipation. A combination of dread, misery and loss of desire to live, allow Louise to commit subconscious suicide. Louise refuses to accept her oppression, and her heart condition obliges her desires for freedom. She dies as liberated woman, releasing herself from her societal cage.

In these four short stories, every protagonist is a female victim of male abuse, however Delia, of Sweat by Zora Neale Hurston, is the only woman to receive physical abuse at the hands of her husband.  Delia’s husband Sykes inflicts regular beatings upon Delia. Sykes’ savage nature is evident when Hurston tells the reader, “Two months after the wedding, he had given her the first brutal beating”.  In addition to physical abuse, Sykes subjects Delia to emotional abuse and exploits her shamelessly. Sykes engages in extramarital affairs and does nothing to keep this fact from Delia. In fact, he enjoys flaunting his adulterous habits. Hurston describes an incident where Sykes displays his latest girlfriend, Bertha, “Just then Delia drove past on her way home, as Sykes was ordering magnificently for Bertha. It pleased him for Delia to see.  "Git whutsoever yo' heart desires, Honey. Wait a minute, Joe. Give huh two bottles uh strawberry soda-water, uh quart uh parched ground-peas, an' a block uh chewin' gum."  In this way, Sykes inflicts Delia with metaphorical slaps to the face as often as he bestows them literally.  Not only is Sykes taking jabs at Delia’s emotional state by parading his new woman in front of her, her is exploiting her hard work by squandering the money Delia earned on gifts for Bertha.  Sykes rejects his role as a husband by refusing to support Delia financially, “She had the memory of his numerous trips to Orlando with all of his wages when he had returned to her penniless, even before the first year had passed” (Hurston) and crosses the line as an oppressor as he consumes the money Delia earns to support her basic needs.  Sykes takes his abuse a step further when he conveys his desire for Delia to leave their house so that he may live there permanently with Bertha.

Hurston expresses that due to Delia’s Christian temperament, she has suffered these abuses in silence for fifteen years. However, as the reader is introduced to Delia, they see her move into a stronger, more powerful form of self. “(Delia)… at some imprecise point before the narrative's conclusion, relinquishes her tolerance of Sykes's diabolism to become a vengeful wife intent upon helping to bring about her wayward spouse's death” (Trudell). Delia expresses her new found strength when she tells Sykes, “"Ah hates you, Sykes," she said calmly. "Ah hates you tuh de same degree that Ah useter love yuh. Ah done took and took till mah belly is full up tuh mah neck. … Lay 'round wid dat 'oman all yuh wants tuh, but gwan 'way fum me an' mah house. Ah hates you like a suck-egg dog"(Hurston). As Delia stands up for herself and what belongs to her, she refuses to allow Sykes to dictate how her life will unfold. Delia transitions from a battered woman, to an unassailable controller of her own life. Laurie Champion agrees in her socioeconomic take on Hurston’s short stories, “Delia develops from a meek woman who acquiesces to Sykes's abuse to one who defends herself both verbally and physically…Hoping that Sykes will receive retribution for abusing her, a week before he dies, she says, "Whatever goes over the Devil's back, is got to come under his belly. Sometime or ruther” (Champion)

Sykes continues to display his evil disposition when he positions a caged rattlesnake by the front door of the house. This is an effort to eradicate Delia from her home by sheer fear. When Sykes realizes that the contained snake has not caused Delia to abandon the cabin, he hides the snake in Delia’s wash hamper in a direct attempt to murder her. When Delia discovers this (and escapes the rattlesnake’s poison) she immediately understands that Sykes must be destroyed in order for her to survive. She choses to take the lantern needed to light the cabin, and hide. Delia refuses to warn Sykes, or give any indication, that the snake still occupies the dark home, in hopes that Sykes will receive his just rewards.

Delia’s hope comes true. In an ironic twist, “Sykes's own action renders justice in "Sweat": the very snake he intends to bite Delia bites him instead.” (Champion). Delia listens as Sykes is bitten and the poison begins to enter his body. Delia realizes this is the perfect opportunity to free her self from the years of oppression he has trapped her under. Delia turns the tables on Sykes by denying him aid, even as he calls out to her by name. "the man who has loomed above her through the years now crawls toward her, his fallen state emphasized by the frame of the door and Delia's standing figure; the man who has treated her with continuous contempt and cruelty now hopes for help from her" (Baum). Delia commits the perfect murder and successfully emancipates herself as she stands over Sykes. In a final act of spite, Delia shows herself to Sykes, and allows him realize that not only does she know what he attempted to do to her, but that she could have saved him from his fate.

            Critics suggest that her refusal to give aid denotes Delia’s spiritual downfall and failure as a Christian child of God. Cheryl A. Wall Argues, "Delia makes no effort to warn, rescue, or even comfort [Sykes]. She exacts her revenge but at a terrible spiritual cost. ... The narrator does not pass judgment. Yet, how will Delia, good Christian though she has tried to be, ever cross Jordan in a calm time?"  However others disagree. Delia’s virtue remained unshaken as she tolerated Sykes’ beating, cheating, exploitation, and oppression for years. As she serves Sykes retribution, she does not lose God, but simply allows whatever has gone over the Devil’s back, to come under his belly. (Hurston)

Delia, Louise, Emily, and the unnamed Narrator, have each suffered at the hands of oppressors and fought back by any means necessary in order to regain their freedom. They have subjected themselves to social estrangement, lunacy, spiritual detriment, and even physical death to secure any form of liberation possible. Each woman lives in a society that perpetuates the cycle of male oppression and abuse and each is trapped by the confines of cultural expectations. By defying these norms, the women become ‘Sheros’. A Shero is “a term that African-American female writers coined to describe women who did not behave according to the Anglo hegemony…women (that) go crazy, kill themselves, ect…(to) free themselves by any means necessary” (Harper).