Page 1 of 1

Keats as a Chauvinist!

PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 11:56 am
by Fred
What gave me the idea for this post was steen's signature thingy
You don't love a women because she is beatiful, she is beatiful because you love her.
so thanks

Anyway thats the opposite of the seniment Keats expressed in his letters to Fanny which is One of the reasons I dont fid them sweet.

Was Keats patronising and chauvinistic towards women.
And if yes can he be excused?

PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 12:56 pm
by Steen
I don't know to be sure. However I can see more evidense for saying "no" then "yes"
You can take the view that Keats views woman as objects. Not sexual objects, but almost goddesses. Every woman Keats dicribes is perfect. They are all beauitful, at least on the outside. Even Lamia, while being a ugly snake inside, takes the form of a beautiful and exotic woman whom Lycus cannot help loving. If you were being cynical then you could say that Keats' female characters are nothing more then male fantasy and are mearly objects of perfection that he worships in his own way, making a false god out of the female form.
However you cannot forget that Keats revamps the view of women in romantic litriture. Before Keats and others like Jane Austin, women were depicted as submisive and aloof. Keats dismissed the ideas of courtly love, the idea that a man should move heaven and earth of a woman and expect nothing in return.
The women in Keats work are stronger in will and less, well, pathetic!!! I mean I have never met anyone who would even think of being seen as a object or adoration it's so...cliche.
Lamia is a good example because she doesn't wait for Lycus to come and sweep her off her feet, she goes and seduces him, then keeps him to herself in her "purple-lined palace of sweet sin"
That kind of role-reversal would have shocked more then one person!
Don't forget, in a world where still in "housewife-childbearing" role they had little power. When Keats makes his woman as goddesses and muses he gives them a great power: Complete domiantion of the male characters hearts and minds.

PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 4:12 pm
by Fred
you know sensible answers can be very annoying :evil:
yes thats it he canbe excuse for"objectifying" women because of his youth and as a product of his era and society.

I really did hope to get a discusion out of this but unfortunatlly abit like Apollonius in Lamia sense destroyed a perfictly illogical argument :(

PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 9:54 pm
by Steen
Lol! If I was in a bad mood I would be insulted that I have become the voice of logic!!! Noramly I am the one specking out aganst logic!

We can still get a debate out of this...ok, mabye my argument was quite good (rare occerance!) but i'm sure it has flaws....

PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 11:42 am
by Fred
sorry my post wasnt that nice :oops: but I was sort of annoyed with logic and Im sorry to tell you this but I cant seem to see any holes in your argument and that is what I specialise in!!
Except that is my point he ignore plain women and only payed any attention to beautiful ones . He also said somthing rather nasty about brunettes to fanny in a letter which annoyed me no end.

PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 9:54 pm
by Steen
lol....mabye...just mabye....I should read these letters.....I've only skim-read and picked out the good bits! I do that with a lot of things..even life!

I may even form a counter-argument against my own ideas! That would not be a new thing for me! I like argements that have two sides...

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 6:38 am
by Fred
Why only 2 sides? An argument should have 4 0r five or hey an infinate number of sides.
The counter argument thing not somthing that usally happens to me a lot but it is sort ofannoying when you are suppose to be trying to convince someone of somthing and you end up thinking of counter arguments!
I could of course be prejudiced (spelling??) and was just not amused by keats when I read the letters!
Actually an argument should probably have 360 sides as thats how many angles their are :wink:

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 9:56 pm
by Steen
Lol...I wrote down my ideas on this for an exam practice to see what my treachers could be right yet!

Oh Nein!

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2005 3:55 am
by MonroeDoctrine
Sometimes its real easy for people to become Academics and sophisticated about something that lacks substance. Keat is a humanist and he happen to be straight; and he likes women; SO WHAT? Most great men did!

Give me women, wine and snuff untill I cry out hold;
You may do this sans objection, till the day of reserection;
For bless my beard! They aye shall be my beloved trinity!

PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2005 10:15 pm
by Steen
Nothing wrong with liking woman...I have far more female friends then male friends. Just more fun that way. All my friends are like the socal outcasts anyway (and damn proud of it, we don't have a image to bother keeping up).
But ok. I think we have estabished Keats was not qustion then? :P

PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:28 pm
by Becky
Was Keats a sensualist?

PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 10:06 pm
by Saturn
Oh no please, now you'll get MonroeDoctrine breathing down your neck with that question :roll: