Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Clearly Unfair!
Stephen, a hand or a lower class worker, is married to a women, that is a drunk and is 'bed ridden', that he doesn’t really love. His love is for a woman named Rachel. Stephen works for Mr. Bounderby so Stephen talks to him about how he wants divorce his current wife to marry Rachel. Also, keep in mind that Rachel likes Stephen back. Bounderby says that Stephen cannot divorce his wife because of his class, which in Bounderby’s eyes, is too low. I believe this is wrong because Bounderby would feel if he was in Stephen’s shoes. Resulting from this, Stephen must live with a woman that he does not love anymore and he loves another woman that loves him back. I would not be able to live in Stephen’s situation. Do you think Bounderby is wrong for not letting Stephen divorce just because he isn’t highclass?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Of course I think it's wrong! It is absolutely unfair to categorize certain peoples' rights solely because of the amount of money they acquire. Wasn't it Bounderby who in fact stated that, " I hadn't a shoe on my foot. As to a stocking, I didn't know such a thing by name. I passed the day (birthday) in a ditch, and the night in a pigsty...I was ragged and dirty, that you wouldn't have touched me with a pair of tongs." He also admits, "How I fought through it, I don't know. I was determined, I suppose. I have been a determined character in my later life, and I was suppose I was then." These facts support the concept that Bounderby had a rather poverty-striken childhood, which perhaps motivated him to determine a better life for himself in society. This scene of his arrogant pronuciation to who laws protected is, in my opinion, quite hypocritical. He states that he was determined to get himself out of his horrid situation and into one that would benefit himself and possibly others. Can't he see the simple motives of Stephen's determination to get himself out of a relationship that is without love? Stephen is not only looking out for himself, but he's also providing the opportunity for his alcoholic wife to find herself once again, without his nag of a presence to stop her. I believe that Mr.Bounderby was and is a good person (due to his circumstances of life as a child); money and class(as it does to most humans) got the best of his honesty to his motives/morals. His main purpose now in life (what it seems like) is to make sure he does not go back to that state of poverty; he is well-over content at this point.
ReplyDeleteHung, you have made an excellent point! This is a perfect example of how life was like during industrialization when people didn't have certain basic human rights.It's not fair judge someone by their social class, Bounderby is a cruel human being for doing this to Stephen who certainly deserves better and the right to divorce and marry the woman his heart wants. Like they say in life, love has no boundaries. Thus Stephen should be able to marry who he wants regardless of social ranking.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anissa. Class doesn't give a limit on what a person can do or should do, for that matter. Stephen trully loves Rachel and would do anything to be with her. He wants to end his relationship with his wife in a clean way, but the Bounderby denies him the right to divorce her. I believe that divorcing his wife would be more beneficail and would be less of a risk than committing murder. This is a great example of life in the Indusrtialism Era because it deals with trouble in social class and the limited rights given to each individual. A person should be able to marrry, divorce, or even love anyone that they'd like. It's unfortunate here that Stephen doesn't have that option.
ReplyDelete