Guy de Maupassant, author of The Necklace, writes in the first paragraph that “women have no caste or class.” Do you agree with this? Why or why not? What about men: do they have caste or class? Write at least three paragraphs discussing this question. Don't forget to critique to a fellow classmates' response stating whether you agree or disagree with their points.
In that time period in france it seemed that the women had only the caste of the man they married. If the man was powerful and wealthy, they were in that class of the people. If the man they married was poor and influential then they were considered that too. So the women seemed to have class but it as really the man who gave them that class and who controlled it.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't seem that the women could change their class once they had one, maybe if they married a man of higher class they would but not otherwise. In the case of the necklace she married someone of medium class but wanted higher and tried to raise herself by looking pretty and really lowered herself. So maybe in his way she didn't really control her class but could influence it.
-Billy
Guy de Maupassant may have said that "women have no caste or class," but I do not agree with this statement.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think that it just depended on the woman to have caste or class. It may have been true that some women did not have class, but others definitely did. For example, Madame Forrestier was classy, and had a somewhat important role in her own life. Madame Loisel, on the other hand, did not behave particularly classy and mostly just lived in what she wanted her world to be like.
Next, I think that the same thing goes for men; some of them have caste and class while others do not. It is true that men played a more important role in the business world back then, which made it easier for them to fit into those words, but that didn't mean that all men had caste and class. Mr. Loisel was a very good man, in my opinion, and didn't have that much class more out of circumstance than his actual work ethics and behaviors.
Finally, I think that some caste and class actually had to do with where the person was born, and not how they acted. Women like Madame Loisel didn't have that much class, but it really wasn't her fault. She tried to have class, but she was also self-diminishing and didn't have the right circumstances. Also, she didn't work, like most women of the time did not, and that affected the opinion that women have no caste or class.
However, overall, I think that it wasn't just the gender of the person that determined caste and class. Women could have caste or class, and so could men, but both could also have neither quality. It all just depended on what type of family they were born into and how they behaved later in life.
I think People now and people 100 years ago always have and always will take Caste and Class pretty seriously. Everything revolves around the income. Clothes, houses, cars, travel, everything needs money and it's not uncommon for people to try and up their class by buying expensive things. And because women work and make their own personal income they can define their class without having to marry someone rich. Back in that time women had less power over what class they were in.
ReplyDeleteMen seem to care less but that doesn't mean they don't care. I think now a days men and women both control their class to certain extent.
-Giulia
I think that in this day and age there are some forms of caste and class, however it is not as "extreme" as it was in older times. A long time ago women did have castes and classes. They didn't work, and were viewed as mothers, and homeworkers. A long time ago, castes and class were very extreme and set people apart from others. Nowadays, things are a little different.
ReplyDeleteToday, castes and class are existent however they seem to matter a lot less than before. There are working class, and business class, and many more economic classes. Social classes and castes exist in schools, work environments and many other places.
I think that men and women have castes and class today and did back then. However the difference between now and then is that back then the men's castes and the women's were separate. Today, the classes and castes in our society aren't divided into men and women. All people are intermixed between castes.
I disagree with Guy de Maupassant when he said that "Women have no caste or class." In the old days, there were some women that were poor, and some that were rich. They had a different class represented by how much money their spouse had. In The Necklace, Mathilde has a very low class because her husband does not bring in a lot of money. Her friend, however has a very high class because she is rich.
ReplyDeleteWhen Mathilde went to the ball looking so beautiful, she felt like she was equal to all of the other people. Anyone would talk to her there, because she looked like she was rich. She got to be whoever she wanted to be, and was never defined by her low-status because no one knew. She was happy that way, but of course, she had to leave sometime and go back to her world where she was poor, and lonely.
Some people would argue, that a woman's class would only be defined by her father's or her husband's. This, I think, is also true. Let's say a girl was born into a middle class family, and then marries a poor man. Suddenly, she would no longer be middle class, but would be poor - working class. So, I really think that there was class then and there is now, and I think that there will always be some sort of way to discriminate against people that aren't as fortunate than others.
I feel that in today's world, we have a system that is coed, and maybe it is not as defined as it used to be, but we still have a general awareness of where people stand in our system. The general sense of the Norwich/Hanover area is that we vary from lower middle class to lower upper class. In our system, most women do work, and have jobs that are of an equal status as men.
ReplyDeleteSo in one respect our system doesn't exist, because the women in todays society work. So in that respect, Mr. Maupassant is incorrect, but we still have the system were if you have more money, you can do more things, so in that respect Mr. Maupassant is correct.
I believe that this story was written and based in a time much different then ours. Back then, the women had no rights, and know they have just as much of a right as the men do. So the reason Mr. Maupassant's ways are different is because times have changed and we as people have evolved.
Women back then did not have a lot of class because they were sometimes servants and were considered not as smart or strong as men. Which isn't true but is what they believed back then. So I think what he says is true for what was thought at the time.
ReplyDeleteMen on the other hand were thought to be smarter and stronger so they were probably "classy" and were higher up in importance then women.
But now a days men aren't considered as classy as women and we now know that men and women can equally smart and strong. But back then that was just what they believed.
I agree with Guy De Maussant because back then women were separated into different levels of society, but only based on their husband's wealth.Women were placed according to where they came from or who they married. If one came from the hovels of a rural area, she didn't have as great a chance of marrying high than a woman of noble birth. Also, without being born into high society, the only way a woman could get into the high rankings was to marry a man of class and wealth.
ReplyDeleteIn appearances, anyone could tell that a woman was upper or lower class. Upper class women had a delicate yet elegant air to them,and the ostentatious dresses,jewelry,transportation, and dwellings. Lower class women had a rough and more grim look about them, with no clothes or wealth to show off.
Yet most women in higher society achieved their rank from their wealthy husbands. Social climbers were common, where the middle class women strived to use their looks to get a rich husband. So men had the most caste and class, with the world at their fingertips if they had money in their pocket. I agree with Billy in that women got their class from the men. In today's society the playing field has evened out, but we will always have the distinct upper, middle,and lower class.
I agree with Billy. At that time in france woman had no rights. Their husbands virtually owned them, kind of like an object. When they married all of their possessions and land then belonged to their husbands. Also they had no choice in who they married. their father is going to marry them off to whomever has the most wealth and property, so basically it was a bidding war over a woman if two or more men were interested. The woman had no choice but to marry the man that was decided for her.
ReplyDeleteIn the story the girl wishes that she was rich and had many many servants and riches and good food and jewelry. That was so that she could be accepted into society as a rich woman. Jewels and riches were only accessible to the very high class woman, and every one that was not rich could not be part of that group.
Then woman had no rights, but that is not true today. Woman have just as many rights as men, and just as many opportunities. Just as an example, we had a woman running for president this past year. Back then there was not as much racism, before there were slaves that is. So now all races are being more and more accepted into society, even though in some places that is not true.
In conclusion, I think that it is true for that time period that woman had no cast or class, but that has changed a lot and is still changing.
I agree with guy. In the time the book was written women did not have class or cast. women Lived the way their husbunds did and if they were married to a wealthy man they were wealthy women and the sam goes for a poor man. The spouse was the quality control for the wifes life. Women had no cast eithe so they were all on the same level, with some women living much better than other women. Men had caste and class because they were the ones who worked and mde the money for their wives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Giulia said in general. However, she said "I think people now and people 100 years ago always have and always will take caste and class seriously." I think that there were also always exceptions to those rules; people who didn't think it was so important. I also think that today people aren't really as concerned with caste and class as they once were.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with that statement. I think that the women had caste and class, but it was defined by how they dressed and the jewelry they wore. Women of a lower caste and class were rough and had a hardened look to them. They definitely looked their class.
ReplyDeleteAlso, seeing as their husbands bought everything they wore, the men had quite a big influence on how their wives were viewed by everyone else. But the women could control their caste and class if they really tried. As in the Necklace, Mathilde was able to raise her class and caste for one night, by wearing nice clothes and acting like she was of a higher class.
The men had a caste and class, but it was definitely more of an obvious posturing peacock type of thing. Whoever had the hunting parties and the ones who were big, strong, and rich, they were of higher class.
I agree with Billy. I think that once a woman has made a place in society for herself in that time, she really couldn't get out of it. Billy, you should make that paragraph less confusing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Katherine when she said that the women in the old times only got their class from their husbands. I think that she was right about the fact that women would try very hard to be in a higher class-like Mathilde.
ReplyDeleteWomen of that time period were either housewives or if they were very impoverished would be a servant. They didn't really have a any sort of caste or class, other than being loyal to their husbands. I don't agree with this at all and think that women are a valuable part of society. Women are excellent workers and are just as capable as men. However, during the this time in France, women were defined by their male counterparts.
ReplyDeleteMen definitely had a class and caste back then, and made up most of society. They were in all seats of power and had control of the working world. Nowadays, men and women are equal members of society, have the same amount of influence. We have evolved a lot since back then in France, and we will keep evolving until everyone is totally equal.
I agree with what theo said about the classes in france
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ethan D in that women were considered second class citizens because of what everyone was taught to believe in that time period. Maybe if given the chance, or if they were raised like we all were, they would have had different thoughts about women and their role in society.
ReplyDeleteWoman and men in that time period were very different, woman would basically be who the man is, if the man was rich the woman would be rich. If the man was poor the woman was also poor. There is another way a woman could be wealthy, if they were born into a wealthy house they would be wealthy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with giulia because no matter what we will take Caste and Class very seriously and it will always be a part of life. Also people back then and people now, they judge on what your cloths are or what kind of house you have or what car they have. No matter what people will judge other people based on class and caste. One difference now a-days woman can have caste or class without being married.
I agreed with Giulia generally. The income of the household is what separates one family from another. In this day and age, it still is relatively the same as it was a long time ago. People want to buy expensive things to show off their wealth and class. I thought Giulia made good points that were accurate and well spoken.
ReplyDelete:)
I agree with Ethan. Women back then were either low-class middle-class or high-class/royalty. So they definately had a caste system even if they didn't enforce it. That statement also goes for men. Nowadays we do have caste systems even though we no longer really define weather or not you are middle class, ect. Some men look at each others cars and houses and wives and decide if they can be friends with them or if they are to above their way of living. So nowadays i think most of the caste system we have is in our heads and ot really shown
ReplyDeleteI agree with henry, today women and men both have class and cast. In the time of the Necklace women relied on their husband for caste. We have come along way from the time of the Necklace through civil and women's rights. It seems if you have power then you have caste or class like the power to vote and other things. Since in the time of the Necklace they didn't have that the didn't have class or caste.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with what Ethan said. He said "Women back then did not have a lot of class because they were sometimes servants and considered not as smart and strong as men." Some women may have been servants, but not all the women of the time. There were still some women who had class and held their heads high. Just because some women were servants, or at least acted like servants in their own households, did not mean that all women were that way.
ReplyDeleteI would like some clarification on when liza said "they definitely looked their class." TO me it partially made sense, but I am still trying to figure out what to make of it. I also agree with theo when he said that the women in france now have rights today, because that statement is completely true. I think that one of the reasons women have rights now is because of evolution, and women became more vocal about their rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with henry that now our system of class is much better and more defined with class. And in the time period that the book was written was much different then ours today. Because back then woman were not very high up in the caste and weren't thought of as being classy. Back then there were no middle classes it rich and poor.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Katherine when she says that Women really got their class from their husbands. I think it's sad but true because women didn't have jobs they had no personal income etc. I also disagree with Ethan Hurd when he says women have NO caste or class. Because exactly what Liza said: They got their class from fashion and jewelry. It's true that their husbands are the ones earning the money to buy them the beautiful jewels but that doesn't mean they don't have class. They still care and try
ReplyDeletei disagree with aidan. mathilde was able to change her caste and class signifigantly, and it didnt matter what her husbands class was. and women had caste and class, but it was often defined by their husbands.
ReplyDeleteSolid comment jay. You explained your ideas well and i could get the jist of what you meant. You could have tried and used more examples of how we have class nowadays but otherwise a very good thought
ReplyDeletei agree with Guy de Maupassant because back in the days women weren't as classy as men so when he wrote the story he was trying to make it as factual as possible, but if they got married to a wealthy man there were wealthy. it was kind of like if blacks and whites if the blacks were working for a ritch owner they were rich
ReplyDeleteGreat job guys! I'll post another question tonight.
ReplyDeleteHave a nice weekend.
I agree with Billy when he said that women only get their caste from marry a man who was on a different level.
ReplyDelete