Grubbs 1

Lexi Grubbs
Mr. Clark
15 February 2018
English 12: Honors British Literature
The Wife of Bath is No Feminist
Comedienne Sarah Silverman stated once, “as soon as a woman gets to an age where she

has opinions, and she’s vital, and she’s strong, she’s systematically shamed into hiding under a

rock.” Sadly, this is not only true today and has withstood the tests of time. A prominent literary

example of oppressive views towards women comes from Geoffrey Chaucer’s novel, The

Canterbury Tales. In the book, a strong fighter of that notion is the Wife of Bath, who is often

regarded as one of literature’s first feminists. However, there is a significant amount of evidence

to argue against that statement. Therefore, it is plausible that there is a firm negation against the

notion of naming the Wife of Bath as a feminist icon.

It should be duly noted that the definition of feminism, according the Merriam-Webster

Dictionary, is “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes”. Note that

this definition pushes equality of the sexes as a whole. This definition is crucial in understanding

what the argument is truly alluding to and how the evidence can either prove or disprove this

statement.

With this in mind, the first contention is that the Wife of Bathe focuses on oppressing the

men around her rather than obtaining an equal role in life. The text states the following on the

matter, “I kept my older husbands well in hand. (…) O Lord, I wrecked their peace, innocent as

they were, without remorse.” (Chaucer 268) She strived for full domination over her husbands.

This is a direct contrast against the definition of feminism as there is no equality present. In no
 Grubbs 2

way does feminism call for the dominant sex to be broken down in order to reach equality;

feminism simply works towards giving opportunity to the repressed gender in order to build

them up to that same level.

The second contention is that the Wife of Bath focuses on her own personal gain rather

than for her fellow woman. While she does talk a lot about how all women are entitled to their

say in their bodies and marriages, she also says, “And faith I set no store by it; no pleasure it was

to me. They’d given me their treasure, and so I no need of diligence winning their love, or

showing reverence. They loved me well enough, so, heavens above, why should I make a dainty

of their love?” (Chaucer 264) She is essentially saying that she made men work for her to receive

satisfaction, and that is all she was concerned about. She did not care, in those instances, of how

these actions would affect women. She is very selfish in what she wants and does not bother to

concern herself about anything other than what she wants.

With the idea that the Wife of Bath is an executor of the very actions that feminism fights

against and a women that is unconcerned with her fellow women in mind, it is acceptable and

appropriate to state that she is not a feminist. Yes, there are instances where one can claim to be

an example of her feminism, but they are just that: instances. Think about it, just because a

person cooks for others on occasion does not mean they are a chef. This example stands true for

feminism, as well. In conclusion, the Wife of Bath should be credited for her strength and

authenticity, but she should not be the poster child of a movement designed for equality.
 Grubbs 3

Work Cited

Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales. Penguin Classics, 2003.