Victims:
Archetypes of Women in Folklore and Our Culture’s Misunderstanding of the Feminine
Caroline James
Senior Thesis | 2026
Villains,Virgins,Victims: ArchetypesofWomeninFolkloreandOurCulture’s MisunderstandingoftheFeminine
By:CarolineJames
Theconceptoffolkloreisknownandbelovedbymany,but itisanundeniablydifficulttopictodefine.Folkloreisacomplex webofmythology,fairytales,history,andculturalrelevancethat byitsverynaturecannotbeboxedintooneeasydefinition.Scholar JackZipesdefinesfairytalesas“storiesthatbreathe”(Zipes4).He arguesthatthereisnosimplewaytodefineafairytale,no historicalmarkerofwhatdoesanddoesnotqualify,nochecklistto meet.Thisthesisdefinesfolkloreasthestoriesthathavebeen interpretedinmanydifferentwaysthroughouthistory,thatareso deeplyintertwinedinpopularculturalmindsetthattheycannotbe separatedfromhowpeoplethink,feel,andwrite.Often,theyuse magicandfantasytotellstoriesaboutgenuinehumanconnection. Theyarenotjuststoriesofentertainment,butrathertheyhave culturalrelevancebothtodayandatthetimetheywerecreated. Folkloreexistsintheveryfabricofourhistory.Therefore,itis naturalandinfactnecessarytoquestionhowthesestoriesaffect ourculture,especiallywhenthatcultureissowroughtwith disagreementandconflict.Wehave adutytostudythestoriesthat wetellouryouthfromavarietyofdifferentperspectives,inthe hopesofchangingourculturalmindset.Inthisessay,Iwillexplore howfolkloreportrayswomen,arguablyoneofthemost misunderstoodgroupsinoursociety,andhowthefolkloreand languagesurroundingwomenhaschangedovertime.Iwillexplore howmodernauthorscategorizefemalecharactersinfairyandfolk talesbytheirsexualnature,andhowthesearchetypes,(namely villains,virgins,andvictims),limitourculturalunderstandingof thefeminine.
Inmodernfairytales–thatistosay,fairytalesfromthe EarlyModernperiod,roughly1600andbeyond–womenareoften
portrayedinverynarrowandoftenlimitingcategories.Womenare eithervirtuousorvillainous.CharacterslikeCinderellaare portrayedassoftanddocile,whilecharacterslikeCinderella’s wickedstepmotherarejustthat-wicked.Theyareboxedinto binariesthatcanbedifficulttoseepast.Formanyofus,our perceptionsofthesecharacterscomefromwritingslikethoseof CharlesPerrault(1628-1703),andasanyonewhohasstudied Perrault’sworkscanattestto,heuseshisfemalecharacters’ sexualityasadirecttestamenttotheirmoralityandvirtuosity.He usessymbolismandinnuendos,somemoresubtlethanothers,to makeconnectionsbetweenawoman’smoralityandhersexual history.Thisisparticularlyevidentinstorieslike“Bluebeard,” “Cinderella”,and“LittleRedRidingHood.”Ineachofthese stories,thecentralfemalecharacterisrepresentativeofadifferent femininearchetype.Bluebeard’swifeisavillainizeddeviant, Cinderellaisthecovetedvirgin,andLittleRedRidingHoodisa victim.
Perrault’s“Bluebeard”portraysthecharacterofthewifein anunderdevelopedway.Thatistosay,thecharacterherselflacks thedepthandversatilitynecessaryforatalelikethis.However,the natureofthefolktaleshowsaresilienceinthewifethatPerrault failstoportray.Thatis,Perrault’stakeawayisdirectly contradictorytowhatisexplainedinthestory.“Bluebeard”is particularlyinterestingwhenexaminedthroughthedifferentlenses offeministfairytalescholarsAlisonLurieandMarciaK. Lieberman.Althoughbothfeministscholars,whosewritingwas prominentinthe1970sand1980s,theyhadwildlydifferent opinionsonthenatureoffairytalesandhowtheyfitintofeminist narratives.Lurie,in“FairyTaleLiberation,”claimsthatfairytales andfeminismcananddocoexist.Shedeclaresthat,“forevery cleveryoungestsonthereisayoungestdaughterequally resourceful”(Lurie).Sheusesthisasevidenceofthefeminist natureoffairytalesdespitethecommonculturalperceptionthat womeninfairytalesareinferiortotheirmalecounterparts.
Lieberman,contrastingly,believesthatfairytalesareinherently anti-feminist.SherebukesLurie’sclaimbysayingitisirrelevantif moreobscurefairytaleshavefeministelements,becausetheseare notthestorieswetellourchildren.Inherarticle“SomeDaymy PrinceWillCome,”Liebermanargues,“Acloseexaminationof thetreatmentofgirlsandwomeninfairytalesrevealscertain patternswhicharekeenlyinterestingnotonlyinthemselves,but alsoasmaterialwhichhasundoubtedlyplayedamajor contributioninformingthesexualroleconceptofchildren,andin suggestingtothemthelimitationsthatareimposedbysex” (Lieberman,187).BothLurieandLiebermanseektointerpretfairy talesfromafeministperspective,butwhileLurie’sclaimfocuses especiallyonthepositivefairytales,Liebermanaimstoexamine thepatriarchalculturethatthesestorieswerebornfrom.Sheargues thatthereisadistinctphenomenonoffairytalesandfolklore influencingyoungwomenintotakingonapatriarchalviewpoint.I takeamorenuancedperspective.Bothofthesescholarshave valuableinsight,butbothneglectthecomplexityofthetopic.I arguethatfairytalesareproductsandperpetuatorsofapatriarchal societyandare,simultaneously,evidenceofwomen’ssurvival storiesthroughouthistory.“Bluebeard”isaperfectexampleof this.Itisacommonscholarlyandpopularopinionthatwomenare notfairlyrepresentedinthesestories.However,itisalsoquite remarkablehowwomen’sstoriesofsurvivalagainstthecrueltyof thepatriarchyhavesurvivedinourculturalmindsetintothe presentday.ScholarslikeLurieandLiebermanmakeexcellent pointsaboutthesurfacelevelplaceoffairytalesinfeminism,but thereismuchmorenuancetothesituation.
Itisnotuncommon,andratherunsurprising,forfairytales’ femalecharacterstobeunderdeveloped.Perrault’scharacters rarelyhavemultipledimensionsandaregenerallygivenverylittle characterordevelopment,suchasPerrault’spresentationofthe characterofBluebeard’swife.Mainly,shelacksagencyand resilience.Intheverybeginningofthetale,Perraultstatesthat
Bluebeard“decidedtomarryoneorotherofthem,butheleftthe girlstodecidebetweenthemselveswhichofthemshouldbecome hiswife;whoeverwouldtakehimcouldhavehim”(Perrault,204). ThisisaperfectexampleofPerrault’sfemalecharacterslacking agency.Agencyisthepowerorautonomytomakedecisionsabout one’sownlife.Here,agencyisstrippedfromthecharacterofthe wifeandhersister.Whilesomemayarguethatthesecharactersdo haveagencybecausetheyaregivenatypeofchoice,this perspectiveignorestheimplicationsofPerrault’slanguage.The womeninthisstoryarenotgivenarealchoice.Theyaregiventhe opportunitytodecidewhichwomanwillgiveupherfreedom,but theydonothavethechoicetodefyBluebeardatall.Their supposedagencyiscompletelydeterminedbyaman’sdesiresand hismindsetthathehassomesortofclaimtooneofthesisters.He isstilltheoneincontrol.Thepowerdynamicsareclearlyweighted inhisfavor.Thisinitselfhasbothsocialandsexualimplications. Bluebeardhasmoreagency,moresocietalpower,andmoresexual authorityinapatriarchalsociety.Hisdesiresaretreatedasnatural andevenevidenceofhispoweranddominance,whereasthewife’s desiresarecompletelyovershadowed.
Perraultalsoportraysthisfemalecharacterinanegative light.Infact,MariaTatar,authorof“TamingtheBeast:Bluebeard andOtherMonsters,”makestheexcellentpointthatPerrault criticisesthewifemorethanhedoesBluebeard,amurdererwho hascommittedcountlessatrocitiesagainstwomen.Thisiscertainly trueinthe“moral”ofthetale,(ashortpieceofwritingattheend ofthestorythatPerraultusedtopersuadereaderstoagreewitha certainpointofview,)butalsointhetaleitself.Take,forexample, Perrault’sownwords:“Butneitherofthemwantedhim;bothfelta profounddistasteforamanwithabluebeard”(Perrault,204).
Perrault’sfemalecharactersareportrayedasshallowandsurface level.Itisacommonthemeinfolkloreandfairytalesthat appearancesarenotindicativeofcharacterormorality.Here,the womenareportrayedasuntrustingandevencruelforbeingquick
tojudgeBluebeardbasedonhisatypicalcharacteristics.However, aren’tthewomen’sfearscompletelyjustified?Itishardto understandthepurposeofPerraultincludingthiscriticismofhis femalecharacters,consideringthatitisnotthebluebeardthatthe womenneedtobefearfulof.Itisthemanbehinditandthe atrocitieshehascommitted.Portrayingthesewomenasshallow disregardsthegenuine,rational,andveryrealfearsthatwomen haveaboutmarriageandaboutthedangersthatmenposetothem inapatriarchalsociety.
Additionally,Perraultportraysthecharacterofthewifeas notonlyshallow,butalsofundamentallyweakbecausesheis unabletoignoreher“temptations.”Somescholarsagreethatthere isanunderlyingsexualinfluencetothis,includingMariaTatar, whocitestheinfluenceofthebiblicalbookof“Genesis”andthe frequentmessagingsurroundingwomen’scuriosity.In “Bluebeard,”Perraultstates,“Shewonderedifhewouldpunish herforbeingdisobedient;butthetemptationwassostrongshe couldnotresistit.Shetookthelittlekey,and,trembling,opened thedoor”(Perrault,205).Thisportraysthewifeandhercuriosity as“disobedient”aboveallthings,when,inreality,thewife’s instinctiscorrect.Thebiggestcontradictionin“Bluebeard”isthat Perraultportrayshisstoryasacautionarytaleaboutthedangersof femalecuriosity,butthewife’scuriosityandintuitionarewhat savesherlife.Ifthewifehadn’tdiscoveredthefateofBluebeard’s otherwivesandlearnedhowtodefendherself,shelikelywould havesufferedthesamehorriblefateasthewomenwhocame beforeher.ThenatureofthefolktalethatinspiredPerraultargues thatwomen’scuriosityisnotabadthing,oranevilthing.Itisa methodofsurvival.Perhapsthemostdamningevidence,however, ofPerrault’sneglectofthewife’scharacterappearsinhismoral, wherehediscussesthedangersofcuriositybeforestating,“No modernhusbandwoulddaretobehalfsoterrible,nortodemand ofhiswifesuchanimpossiblethingastostiflehercuriosity” (Perrault,207).Perraultspellsitout,plainandsimple.Hegives
littlementionofthehorrorscommittedbyBluebeardhimself.Even barringthefactthathisfirstmoralmakesnomentionofBluebeard, andsimplyblamesthewife’s“curiosity,”makingthehorrorsof Bluebeardseemlikeanafterthought,hecriticizesthewifeeven whenthefocusismeanttobeonBluebeard.Heblameswhathe seemstobelieveisunavoidablefemalenature.
MariaTatar,inheranalysisof“Bluebeard,”describesthe parallelsbetweenBluebeard’swifeandthebiblicalfigureEve.She statesthat“forBluebeard’swife,asforEve,thatcuriositytakeson abothcognitiveandsexualdimension”(Tatar159).Scholarshave longinterpretedthetaleof“Bluebeard”ashavingahidden messagerelatingtofemalesexualcuriosity.Thisthemeisexplored throughmanytexts,including“Genesis”itself,andisaclear markerofpatriarchalfearofwomen’ssexuality.Tatardoesa wonderfuljobofcomparingandanalyzingthesetwotextsand theirculturalrelevancethroughouthistory.Toexpandonherwork, Iwouldliketoemphasizethearchetypeembodiedbythesetypes ofstories.Whenwomenareportrayedasbeingdeviantfortheir sexuality,orfortheir“curiosity,”itcreatesaculturewherewomen areafraidanddiscouraged,andwheretheyarenotsafetoexpress theirwantsandneeds.Perrault’s“Bluebeard”fairytaleisbotha productandaperpetuatorofthisharmfulpatriarchalmindset,yetit isalsoasurvivalstoryaboutwomenwhohaveoutsmartedand defendedthemselvesagainsttheiroppressors.Forthisreason,there isnotaneasyanswerastowhetherornotthistaleis“feminist.” Therealityofthesituationisthatfeminismchangesandevolves overtime,asdofairytalesandculturalfolklore.Asoursociety progresses,itisimportantforourfolkloretoprogresswithit.
Perrault’sfemalecharacterin“Bluebeard”isnotonly underdeveloped.Sheisalsoinherentlycontradictorytothenature ofsurvivalthatthestoryunwillinglyportrays,andwhilePerrault’s messageiscounterproductive,thenatureofthetaleisactuallya storyofhowwomen’scuriosityisanecessarytooltoprotectthem fromharm.Perraultusesthe“curiosity”ofthecharacterofthe
wifeasaninnuendoforsexualdesire,andhiscriticismofthis aspectofhercharacterisanexampleofthewayhevillainizes womenthathedeemspromiscuousorsexuallydeviant.
Ontheotherhand,characterslikeCinderellarepresentthe virginarchetype,anidealizedversionoffemininityfromthemale perspective.Cinderellahasbeenlockedawayandshieldedfrom therealworldherentirelifebyherfamily.Theytreatherasan objectofservice,ostracizingherfromtheirfamilyandfromthe worldasawhole.Sheisunfamiliarwiththecompanyofmen,and isthereforepresumablyavirginwhenshemarriesthefirstman outsideofherfamilythatshemeets.Thereisanundeniable contrastbetweenhowPerraultportraysBluebeard’swifeandhow heportraysCinderella.WhileBluebeard’swifeisportrayedas sexuallydeviantforhercuriosity,Cinderellaisportrayedasan idealwomanbecauseofherlackofcuriosityattheworldaround her.Sheisperfectlycontenttoliveherlifehappilyandsoftly, despitetheabuseshesuffersatthehandsofherfamily,andasa result,sheisrewardedforherpatienceandvirtue.Perrault’smoral ofthetalestatesthat,“Beautyisafinethinginawoman;itwill alwaysbeadmired.Butcharmisbeyondpriceandworthmore,in thelongrun”(Perrault,47).Perrault’sperceptionof“charm” comesfromCinderella’ssoftness,hercalmandpurenature,which isadirectresultofherseclusionfromtheoutsideworld.The underlyingmessageisthatwomenshouldfocusontheirpatience andpurityinsteadoftheirappearanceorsexualdesirability.While Bluebeard’swifeisdefinedbyhercuriosityanddisobedience, Cinderellaisdefinedbyher“charm.”Sheisrewardedforher sexualpuritybybeinggivenawayoutofherabusivehousehold throughmarriage.Likethestoryof“Bluebeard,”thissendsa complexandproblematicmessage,becauseitencouragestheidea thatsexualpurityshouldberewarded,evenifitcomesfroma placeofabuse.
TheGrimmbrothers’“Ashputtle”,anothervariationofthe Cinderellafolktale,presentssimilarthemes.Whatisparticularly
interestingaboutAshputtle,however,isthatsheismoredefiant thanPerrault’sCinderella.Herseclusionfromtheoutsideworld, ratherthanleadingtoovertobedience,leadstofurthercuriosityat thepossibilitiesthatexistoutsideofthebubbleshehasbeenraised in.WhilePerrault’scharacterishelpedbyherfairygodmother, arguablyyetanotherexampleofCinderellabeingrewardedforher purityandseclusion,Ashputtleactivelyseeksouthermother’s graveandthebirdstohelpher.Additionally,shedoesnotseem particularlyinterestedinmarriage,consistentlyrunningawayfrom theprincebecauseshewantstoreturnhome.Hercuriosityisnot centeredaroundmen.Instead,itisaproductofthesituationshe wasraisedin.ThisisinclearcontrasttoPerrault’sCinderella. Bothareexamplesofthevirginarchetype.Thisismadeclearby thetropeofayoung,shelteredwomanwhoeventuallyisrewarded forherpuritywithmarriage.However,itisimportanttonotehow differentauthorsportraythewomenintheirstories,andtheways inwhichsexualidentityandtheconceptofvirginityorsexual purityislinkedtothoseweoftendeemasidealfemale protagonists.
Thethirdarchetypeofwomenthatfairytalesportrayisthe tropeofthevictim,bestpersonifiedinthecharacterofLittleRed RidingHood.Itisnosecretthatthisstoryhashadastrongand long-lastingeffectonourculturalideas,specificallyour preoccupationandfearofstrangers.However,thetalethatmanyof usweretoldaschildrenhasdarker,moredisturbingoriginsthan thatofayounggirlwhoencountersahungrywolf.Charles Perrault,inhistale,“LittleRedRidingHood,”displaysalarming themesofcrueltyandsexuality,particularlyconcerningtheaspects ofcannibalismandsexualassaultthatareconsistentinthefolktale andrepresentedinPerrault’stale.Thisstory,whenlookedatinthe contextofPerrault’s“moral”regardinghistale,forcesusto examinethemessagesandsystemsthataresodeeplyingrainedin ourculturalmindset.Peopleoftensaythatfairytalesshouldhavea moral,thattheyareawayofteachingchildrenaboutimportant
topicsinaculturallyacceptableway.Butarethesetalesreallya valuablelessontochildren,ordotheyactuallyperpetuateharmful ideasaboutserioustopicslikesexualassault?Iarguethelatter,that thetaleusesharmfullanguagethatperpetuatesacultureoffearfor womenandgirls,and,consciouslyorsubconsciously,createsa cultureinwhichpredatorybehaviorissomewhatexcused.
BeforeIexplorePerrault’staleinparticular,Iwouldliketo citethefolktalethatinspiredPerrault,entitled“TheStoryof Grandmother.”Theverynatureofthestorydisplayssexualaspects concerningtherelationshipbetweentheyounggirlandthehungry wolf.Eventheaestheticuseofmotifsinthestoryperpetuates classicsexualarchetypes.Thewolfrepresentsthebig,scary predatorwhohasallthepower,whileLittleRedRidingHood,or whoeverthisnamelessyounggirlis,representsthevictim. Additionally,inthefolktale,thewolf,disguisedastheyounggirl’s grandmother,takesadvantageoftheirintimatefamilialrelationship andusesittoencouragetheinnocentyounggirltocometobed withhim.Thewolftakesadvantageofthelittlegirl,whointhis situation,seemstohavelittleagency.Sheis,forallintentsand purposes,trapped.
Perrault’staleislessovertinitssexualundertones; however,insomeways,heuseshis“moral”toacceleratethese ideas,allowingthestorytobemoreingrainedinourcultural mindset.Hewrites,“Children,especiallypretty,nicelybrought-up youngladies,oughtnevertotalktostrangers;iftheyarefoolish enoughtodoso,theyshouldnotbesurprisedifsomegreedywolf consumesthem…Unfortunately,thesesmooth-tongued, smooth-peltedwolvesarethemostdangerousbeastsofall” (Perrault,33).Perrault’sversion,whilemoresubtleinitsaddress ofsexualthemes,isjustasproblematicinthewaysthatit addressessexualassaultandthewolfbeingusedasanallegoryfor predatorymen.Perrault’sversionistheonethatmostofusare familiarwithtoday,theonethatismostingrainedinourcultural mindset.Thisversion,however,altersthefolktaletoincludea
tragicdeathforthemaincharacter,andfurthermore,toplacethe responsibilityofavoidingpredatorybehavioronher.This adaptationconvenientlyavoidsthecannibalismthatcanbe witnessedinthesourcetale,presumablytomakethestorymore sociallyacceptableandmoreunderstandabletochildren.However, ifthatisthecase,thenwhyistheaspectofsexualassaultstill represented,andfurthermore,usedasawaytoplacethe responsibilityonyounggirls?Whyisthisacceptablebut cannibalismisnot?Whyisthisdeemedlessviolentorless inappropriatewheninrealitybothareviolentcrimes?Wheredo wedrawtheline?Iproposethatthisstorywasusedasawayto warnyounggirlsaboutthepredatoryinfluenceofadultmen,rather thanchoosingtoeducatechildren,andboysinparticular,aboutthe harmsofrape.Thismindset,whichplacesalltheresponsibilityon thevictimandlittleonthepredatorhimself,isastandardfactorof perpetuatingtoxicrapeculture.Perraultandothercreatorsoffairy talesandfolklorehaveundoubtedlyaffectedourculturalmindset andperceptionofwomenthroughthearchetypestheyportray,and alargepartofthisisthewaysinwhichmenviewandfear women’ssexuality.
Oneofthemostinfamousexamplesofmalefearoffemale sexualityinfolkloreisthemythologicalstoryofMedusa,the GorgonmotherofChrysaorandPegasuswhowasbeheadedbythe heroPerseus(Hesiod).ThereisnodoubtthatthemythofMedusa haschangedandevolveddrasticallyovertime,andwhatis particularlyinterestingaboutheristhatshedoesnotperfectlyfit intothearchetypesofvillain,virgin,andvictim.Shebalancesona linebetweenallthree.Ovid’sversionofMedusaisdescribedas being“[o]nceacclaimedforbeauty”and“theferventhopeofmany suitors”(Ovid125).Thisisacharacteristictypicalofthevirgin archetype.Thereisabeautifulyetshelteredwoman,desiredbut nevertouched.InMedusa’scase,however,thisarchetypeis quicklyshatteredwhensheisrapedbyPoseidon,orNeptune,ashe isreferredtoinOvid’s Metapmorphoses.Here,hervirginityand
agencyaretakenfromheragainstherwill.As Metamorphoses states,“Thiswasnotunpunished”(Ovid,125).Howeveritis unclearfromStephanieMcCarter’stranslationwhothis punishmentistargetedtowards.Ibelievethatthisambiguitywas notunintentional,butrather,wearemadetoquestionour perceptionofwhoisbeingpunished,thevictimortheperpetrator. IsMedusa’stransformationintoasnakehairedgorgonreallya curse,orisitamethodofprotection?Themeninthestoryseem repulsedbyherappearance,butitisundeniablethatMedusa’s curse,orratherability,toturnmentostonewithnothingbuta glance,protectsheragainstbeingassaultedagain.Ibelievethatthe mythofMedusaisfatallymisunderstood.Likethestoryof “Bluebeard,”itiscomplexinitsfeministvalue.WhileMedusais seenasavillainbymanyforhermonstrousstate,sheisalsoa survivorwhoovercomestheabuseshefacesandbecomes powerfulandfearedbymortalmen.
SusanR.Bowers,inherarticle, Medusa and the Female Gaze,arguesthatMedusarepresentsthe“femalegaze,”a phenomenonshedescribesas“[t]heantidotetothemalegaze,and oneavenuetowomenreclaimingtheirownsexuality…learningto seeclearlyforthemselves,thusreconstructingtraditionalmale imagesofwomen”(Bowers217).Iwouldliketoexpanduponthis ideabysharingwhatIviewasthedualityofMedusa’s mythologicalnature.WhileBowers’claimthatMedusaisa symbolofthefemalegazeisbothinsightfulandintelligent,I believethatwecannotignorethewaysinwhichMedusa’sstory hasalsobeenusedtoexemplifythepatriarchalsystemwhichshe referstoasthe“malegaze.”Todothis,Iwouldliketoexaminea phenomenonthatBowersreferstoasthe“perversionofa matrifocalculture’sgoddess.”IncommonWesternlore–for example,biblicallore–thematernalinstinctofwomenis separatedfromhersexuality.Bowerscitesthebiblicalfigureofthe VirginMary.DespiteherbeingthemotherofGod,andtherefore aninherentlymaternalfigure,thesexualaspectofbecominga
motherhasnoplaceinthestoryoftheVirginMary.Infact,in manybiblicalideologies,thiscleansesMaryinsomeway.Itmakes herclosertoGodandfartherfromsin.However,asBowerspoints out,thisisnotthecasewithMedusa.TheverynatureofMedusa’s storymakesitimpossibletoseparateherfromsexuality.As Bowersstates,it“cannotbepurgedfromhermatriarchalorigins” (Bowers217).
Itisworthexploringthefactthatsomescholarsassociate Medusawithanancientgoddessofbirthandfertility(Dexter,25). Bowerscitesthisasanexampleofamatriarchalfigurebeing sexualized.Multiplescholarshavedescribedwhattheyviewasthe sexualiconographyofMedusainHellenicandLatinartand literature.ButIbelievetherehasbeenamisunderstandingamongst scholarsaboutthenatureofMedusaandthefearsheincitesamong men.Hersnakehairhasbeenidentifiedas“phallic”(Dexter26). ScholarscitethebirthofChrysaorandPegasusfromthebloodof Medusa’sseveredhead,admittedlybeholdingastriking resemblancetothecastrationofOuranos,asevidenceofher “half-maleness”(Paglia,51).Thereiscertainlyvalueintheideaof menbeingfearfuloftheMedusa.However,Iarguethatratherthan afearofmalecastration,Medusarepresentsafearofwhatis inherentlyfeminine.Herstoryis,byitsverynature,astoryof femalesurvivalatthehandsofmalesexualoppression.Wherethe fatalmisunderstandingofMedusaisdisplayediswhensheis reducedtoacastratedversionofmalepower,when,Iargue,sheis actuallyasymboloffeminineresilience.AsCamillePaglia recognizes,“Men,neverwomen,areturnedtostonebygazingat Medusa”(Paglia47).Butratherthanevidenceof“the‘terrorof castration’feltbyboysattheirfirstglimpseoffemalegenitals,”I interpretthisdetailasevidenceofMedusarepresentinga protectressofwomen,notboundbythearchetypalrolesthat femalecharactersaresooftenboxedwithin.
Ofcourse,notallfolkloreisthesame.Modernauthorslike PerraultandtheGrimmbrothersperceivedwomeninavery
differentwaythanHesiodandOvidperceivedMedusa.Andwhile literaryfolklorecontainsthesearchetypesinmultitudes,whatwe knowaboutoralfolkloreandancientmythologysuggeststhata fearoffemininesexualityhaschangeddrasticallythroughoutthe centuries.Whilemodernworksoftentrytosuppresswomen’s sexualidentities,ancientideasaboutwomenportraysexualityas somethingtobenotonlyfeared,butalsoadmired.We’vealready discussedtheoriginsofMedusaasaHellenisticandLatin interpretationofamuchmoreancientmatriarchalgoddess.Now,I wouldliketofocusonthearchetypeofthemothergoddess.
Themothergoddessisacomplexideaofanancient representationofwhatwemighttodayconsider“MotherEarth.” Themothergoddessisoftenadeityassociatedwiththecreationof theEarth,andsheisalmostexclusivelyfemale.Manyscholars haveinterpretedthatancientpeopleidentifiedthecreationofthe Earthwiththecreationofhumanity,andthereforetheEarthcomes fromthewoman,justashumanitycomesfromthemother’swomb.
Onesuchscholarwhohasstudiedthearchetypeofthe mothergoddessisCamillePaglia.ShecitestheVenusof Willendorf,anancientsculpturedepictingagoddessoffertility. Shestatesthatthispieceofartisrepresentativeofthe“strange lawsofprimitiveearth-cult.Womanisidolandobject,goddess andprisoner”(Paglia54).Thisisthekeydifferencebetween ancientmythologiesandmodernliteraryfolklore.While archetypesarealwayspresented,theyaresimplifiedinfairytales toplacewomenintoboxesdefinedbyarbitraryideasofsexual purityorpromiscuity.Thepowerthatancientmythologiesdeem inherenttothesexualityandmaternalabilityofwomenhasbeen lost,butcanstillberecoveredthroughalteringourperceptionsand retellingsoffolklore.
Whenwelookatourculturalperceptionofwomenand feminineideals,ourviewislargelycloudedbythestorieswetell, ourfolkloreandhistoricalunderstandingofwhatitmeanstobea woman.However,thereisamisunderstandinginfolklorethat
womencanbeplacedintoboxesandarchetypesinordertofit traditionalpatriarchalstandardsof“good”and“bad.”Thisisa flawthatwehaveallowedtoinfiltrateoursocietalnormsand ideals.However,thisdoesnotmeanthatthereisnovalueto folklore.Infact,storytellingisanartthatisnecessaryaswellas constantlyevolvingandchanging. Zipesproposesthatwecan actuallyalterstorieslikethesetomoreaccuratelyrepresentthe importantvaluesofourculture.Hewrites,“Inhumanminds,we havemadedistinctionsaboutwhichtalesaremorerelevantthan othersandretaininmemorythemostrelevanttoretelland re-create”(Zipes20).Folklorehasbeenpreservedinourculture forareason.Wecannoteraseit,andweshouldnottryto.Whatwe candoisalterandrewriteittoperpetuateadifferentkindof culture,onethatweareproudtoliveinandraiseourchildrenin.
SusanR.Bowers.“MedusaandtheFemaleGaze.” NWSA Journal,vol.2,no.2,1990,pp.217–35. JSTOR.
Dexter,MiriamRobbins.“TheFerociousandtheErotic: ‘Beautiful’MedusaandtheNeolithicBirdandSnake.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion,vol.26,no.1, 2010,pp.25–41. JSTOR.
Hallet,MartinandBarbaraKaraseck. Folk and Fairy Tales.5th Edition,BroadviewPress,2018,Peterborough,Ontario,Canada.
Hesiod.Theogony:ANewTranslationbyMichael Heumann.Trans.MichaelHeumann,InternetArchive,17 Jan2021, https://archive.org/details/hesiods-theogony-translated-bymichael-heumann,licensedunderCCBY-SA4.0.
Lieberman,MarciaK.“SomeDaymyPrinceWillCome.”
Don’t Bet On The Prince: Contemporary Feminist Fairy Tales in North America and England.EditedbyJackZipes, Methuen,Inc.andGowerPublishingCo.,Ltd.1986,29 West35thStreet,NewYork,NY10001,pp.185-200.
Lurie,Alison. Fairy Tale Liberation.TheNewYork Review,1970. api-c6b0c057.duosecurity.com/frame/frameless/v4/auth?sid =frameless-94b45116-c0e0-4612-a188-1662b757cc56&tx= eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJkdW9fd W5hbWUiOiJjamFtZXMwOCIsInNjb3BlIjoib3BlbmlkIiwi cmVzcG9uc2VfdHlwZSI6ImNvZGUiLCJyZWRpcmVjdF 91cmkiOiJodHRwczovL3NoaWIuYnUuZWR1L2lkcC9wc m9maWxlL0F1dGhuL0R1by8yRkEvZHVvLWNhbGxiY
WNrIiwic3RhdGUiOiJiNzRhYTAxMDNjMjc5MDIzMjdl NGFlNzZmMDBkZWJlZS42NTMyNzMzMSIsImV4cCI6 MTc2ODMyMTY3OSwiY2xpZW50X2lkIjoiREk3QkkxM lUwU1kxTVI3V09JWkQifQ.M8Jt_phDqqgrPXONWqVT YF9oex-pF0giUMIzJcT-fw54cafFyWEH5PY49IuZj-QYX UC6gfd_3sKAzZEE3f3Nfw&req-trace-group=5f86328c87 f6d3b8589647e9
Ovid. Metamorphoses.TranslatedbyStephanieMcCarter. PenguinBooks,2023,1745Broadway,Manhattan,New York. Paglia,Camille. Sexual Personae.VintageBooks.1990, Cambridge,Massachusetts.
Tatar,Maria.“TamingtheBeast:BluebeardandOther Monsters.” The Hard Facts of the Grimms’ Fairy Tales, Expandededition,PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton, NewJersey.2019.
Zipes,Jack.“TheCulturalEvolutionofStorytellingand FairyTales:HumanCommunicationandMemetics.” The Irresistible Fairy Tale: The Cultural and Social History of a Genre, PrincetonUP,2012,pp.1-20. Jstor.