I'm going to start with the topic that everyone seems to bring up during our daily discussions about Chaucer. Based on the Wife of Bath's tale, I'm going to have to say that Chaucer is not a feminist, nor is he trying to write about women in a degrading way. I like that he has created a character who seems to be a full fledged liberal feminist. If I had to analyze her deeper as a real person, I would say that she has some huge low self-esteem issues. Women don't just sleep around and marry one guy to the next for no reason. Plus she married three rich men which shows that she cared about money. What better way to cover up low self-esteem then with money? But that's not really what I wanted to discuss. I don't think Chaucer is a feminist because he doesn't seem to glorify the idea of a women being in command. The Wife of Bath seems flighty, does she not? She also contradicts herself in the prologue about being a virgin and about having sex. Also her "moral of the story" isn't a very strong point (I'll go over that in the second paragraph). With those things in mind, I also don't believe that Chaucer was necessarily using those traits and circumstances to belittle women. I think he's simply showing the view of what liberal, feminist women are like. I could easily see a modern Wife of Bath the exact same way. Interesting how feminism has been around for so long and yet they still act completely alike.

Going back to the "moral of the story" now, which is basically: Men, give women all control in a relationship and life will be better. I don't think it's a very good point mostly because I don't believe in the feminist views, but also because of the fact that the WB told the story as a fairytale. One could make up any crazy story if it were a fairy tale and slap on a lesson at the end no matter how stupid it was. Basically this lesson is "taught" by a story that could never possibly happen. There are no ugly old hags waiting for a knight to ask for the secret to a women's desire in real life. No one can just suddenly become both beautiful/young and faithful/loyal (I'm not sure they can exist together period, haha) by free will. It just doesn't make any sense to tell a lesson off of an ancedote that could never occur in life anyway. This takes away from the WB's view credibility, but she does seem like a believable character because of these flaws.

I found it interesting that the WB's prologue was so much longer than her tale. I also think it's good because it gives so much more to compare and contrast her personality to. She is obviously a stereotypical raging feminist. I'm surprised she didn't talk about sleeping with other women too. The rich old husbands that she loved the most seemed to be much more submissive. She had more freedom with them than she did the younger husbands. It was when she married the younger man that she actually got hit and beaten because of his book about the evils of women. She stood up for her gender, ripped out pages, and got punished. And after one last fight they somehow agreed on things and the husband ended up giving her a more equal voice and role in their relationship. I'm not sure how that worked, but apparently it did. I would argue that the WB was lying, but I have nothing to support the idea with. Just that, it doesn't seem likely that a man so into the opression of women, would suddenly just change his mind and completely live in peace afterward. Not buying it. All in all though, this is my favorite character of the Canterbury Tales. She seems the most realistic.