Justin Kearl
Kearl 1
March 26, 2013
AP Literature, 1B
It’s a Woman’s World Essay
Poisonous Flowers
Murder tends to be a touchy subject. It is something that is generally shunned, and
rightfully so, but when it comes to the intrigue surrounding it, murder is unprecedented. Men
kill other men without rhyme or reason and it goes without being questioned much of the time,
but what about when a woman commits this heinous crime? Can it be said that there is a
difference, or is it all the same? There are more examples scattered to and fro throughout
literature than you could put a finger on that study this exact phenomenon. Three main ideas
seem to surface time and time again, the first being that women are often taken advantage of and
kill to gain their freedom, the next being to establish a higher level of power, and the final reason
being an underlying desire to prove something. Controversial as it may be, murder is something
to be dealt with and eagerly sought into.
Girls, girls, girls; so delicate, so beautiful, and yet to some, so vulnerable. How is it that
something so charming, something so dulcet, could be viewed as anything less? How is it that a
man could objectify a woman, and treat her like she is mere property to be had? Even more
importantly, how is it that when this does occur, people are surprise that she has the capacity to
snap? Take for example the character Tess from “Tess of the d’Urbervilles.” Tess is described
as simple, yet beautiful, and upon being sent to live with the wealthy d’Urbervilles, she is in
short time noticed by the nefariously vindictive Alec d’Urberville. She works and he pursues
her, and he steadily grows impatient with the lack of success he finds in acquiring a positive
Kearl 2
brand of feedback from her. As the days grow shorter and as mischief rises around the two
characters, the tone set by the novel starts to fall grim, as predictions of the events to come can
be somewhat easily drawn. In a most helpless scene, Alec takes advantage of poor Tess. From
this point on, that one single event affects her life to the point where she loses someone that
actually treats her like the small-town goddess she has the right to be. Years pass, and eventually
she commits murder on the man that put her in this situation. Granted, Alec had this coming, as
the ruin of another life can easily warrant the loss of your own, but this still brings in a daunting
question: “Why?” Did she do it to exact her revenge? Was it to get even with an enemy that
needed to go? Was it to set an example? No, no, what she was after was the freedom that she
felt before she was made an object of, a freedom that she never before the incident knew that she
had. Killing the perpetrator was the only route that she could see to make that happen, and in the
end, all we have to say is, “Poor little Tess.” Who would have thought that her passing would be
her evident freedom? (Hardy 1891)
Stereotypes are disgusting things, aren’t they? They change our minds long before we
have the proper base to stand on, and most of the time they wind up making fools out of us.
What is even more disgusting, though, is when they are supported by the actions of those under
the gun. People are power hungry. That much is certain, as the hierarchy of greed grows ever
vaster by the day. What would we say, then, if we dubbed a common woman as being idealistic
and money-hungry? Not to say that she is, because such a broad generalization would be foolish,
but for the sake of the concept, what if it were the case? Examine the Shakespearean antiheroine, Lady Macbeth. From the instant she learns the possibility of her dear lover taking the
throne as king, she pushes him to do whatever it takes to give her the queen’s crown. She is
Kearl 3
violent, she is spiteful, and she is manipulative, and the driving force behind her actions rarely
ever fails to be her grotesque thirst for power. In all reality, the better majority of the actual
killings were done by the king-to-be, but it was the lady who plotted every aspect of the plan.
Not to say that Macbeth himself didn’t want the crown. That much is not under debate here. But
if it hadn’t been for her lust for power, things would not have gotten as bloody as they did. With
that being said, though this is only one character and one example, the nearly inhuman want for
strength and currency is one of the reoccurring themes presented throughout literature for why a
woman would find necessity in killing a man. (Shakespeare 1611)
As the supposed weaker sex, there is a definite and reasonable chance that in order to
prove themselves superior to someone else’s title, a woman could be willing to forfeit a life. To
be completely fair, why wouldn’t she? The act of murder is a terrible thing, but when everything
else has been taken from her and it is the only option that she has left, how can it come as a
surprise? There are times when people need to be made an example of, there are times where
someone needs to be taught a lesson, and there are times where a feeling of showing someone
that you are better than they think you are comes into play, but more often than not we need to
prove something to ourselves. We need this. Nobody matters more in our lives than Number
One, and the proof of personal worth is monumental in the journey of self-discovery. What does
that have to do with murder? To prove that you can. To prove that you are good enough and
that you are stronger than somebody else. An interesting example of this is Prince Hamlet’s
maiden, Ophelia, in regard to the killing of herself. Granted, this is not a case of a woman killing
a man, but when most of the men in her life meet their ends, her concept of self-worth doesn’t
glow very bright at all. All she feels that she has remaining in her own grasp is her reckoning,
Kearl 4
and in seizing this, she proves a valuable point to all of the players still breathing that their
actions have destroyed all of the purity in the kingdom. Ophelia wasn’t after power or greed.
She had no spite to seek vengeance, and she did not care if she would be missed. All she wanted
was to prove that she could do it, and to hopefully open the eyes of everybody else. She wanted
to end her suffering and be free of the violence, and to do this she committed the most violent act
of all. Her reward was the proof to Hamlet and his cohorts that they were killing Denmark.
(Shakespeare 1599)
In hindsight, all of these women of literature had something to prove. Tess from “Tess of
the d’Urbervilles” did what she did to prove to herself that she could fight back against the man
who took everything from her, and to prove her worth as a faithful lover to the man that meant
the most to her. Lady Macbeth sent her man to kill everybody ahead of them to show everyone
that she could achieve the dream that most of humanity possesses: To have everything. She
wanted to prove to herself that she could take the crown, but found herself falling short by guilt’s
conclusion. (Such is the reality of lies and deceit.) As mentioned before, Ophelia wanted to
show everybody that they were killing the spirit of Denmark, resulting in the taking of her own
life as a testament to herself that she still had something that nobody else had been able to take
from her. This does not apply only to women, but to the beasts and the harlots in general, as the
desire to prove something in one way or another is one of the absolute most intense, fury-driven
impulses that a person can feel. We are creatures of meaning, and the lack thereof is enough to
lose ourselves over.
So what is the conclusion? Final summation? Do women kill men in a different way
than men do and for different reasons, or is that just something that authors make up? Even
Kearl 5
more importantly, is it just a conclusion that we draw from the unintentional parallels to the real
world made by the authors? After all, women can’t be that much different from men, can they?
All of this may be true, but what is absolutely certain is that their killing is done with a purpose,
and whether that is due to a lust for money or as a means to get back their freedom, it is a
purpose worth giving up everything for. It serves as a scrutinized mission. Nothing can stop a
person who believes in something, and nobody can tie down a woman with something to prove.
That much is sure. We are a generation raised by women, as were our predecessors, and though
the times are changing and the people are growing greedier, it is clear through the tomes of old
that still ring true today that this really is a woman’s world.