查太莱夫人的情人

开篇：写作不仅是一种记录，更是一种创造，它让我们能够捕捉那些稍纵即逝的灵感，将它们永久地定格在纸上。下面是小编精心整理的12篇查太莱夫人的情人，希望这些内容能成为您创作过程中的良师益友，陪伴您不断探索和进步。

第1篇

【关键词】:女权主义者,反女权主义, 男权社会

中图分类号:G623.3 文献标识码:A文章编号:1003-8809(2010)08-0033-01

After read the short story, “Tickets, please” written by D. H. Lawrence, I felt a little bewildered about the writer’s real intention. As we all known, from the literal meaning of the ending, Annie, with the help of other conductress, takes revenge on John Thomas, who they conquer at last. However, recollecting and comparing the manner and expression when John Thomas and the conductresses leave, all sorts of feelings well up in my heart, who is the last winner on earth? Why Lawrence set the ending on the perspective of the men-centered society?

To answer these questions, we should know this short story was created in 1919, which is set during the war, WWI. D. H. Lawrence, to some extent, is the ultimate anti-womanist. He hated the war for what it did to society, kill good men. He hated the fact that the war inverted positions of power. He found it unnatural that women were running society and what is left of men are cripples and dandies. So this is a story with an element of satire, of inversions of power, and ultimately sterilty of society and of male/female relationships. And from this time background we know that D. H. Lawrence would be an anti-womanist, which strongly against the foregoing standpoints that he is a feminism-favor. In another word, the popular notion is that D.H. Lawrence is one of zealot for feminism, however, after read some of his works, I have some other points of view. Not only in the ticket please, Lawrence’s other works also manifest his tendency to anti-womanism. In his Aaron’s Rod, (mostly completed during the war), Lawrence’s anti-feminist ideology had already began to take shape. The patogonist believed that “we must either love, or rule. Once the model of love to change --- it must be changed ... ... men must have clear control of the direction, women have to appeal to the powerful men who yield to the power of the soul, for their own survival. It is clear that the view that Lawrence’s male chauvinism thinking gradually increased to a clear expression at the post-war. In another novel, Women in Love (completed in 1916), the female image shape than its companion, Rainbow, is much more in the shadow. In independent Rainbow, Ursula, a wan who is radical brave, aggressively pursue equal rights with men but it disappeared in Women in Love, has become the tame and ignorant Futie.

Anti-womanism arises to against the development of women’s liberation movement in the 20th century, during that time, perhaps we can say its representatives are D. H. Lawrence, Norman Mailer, Henry Miller, and Jean Genet. Their works offered a powerful challenge to traditional values of capitalism, crude sexuality, and demands of female power in general, these anti-feminists distort female characters by associating them with deviance. As Millett observed, the “interior colonization” of women by men is “sturdier than any form of segregation, and more rigorous than class stratification, more uniform, certainly more enduring”.

Unlike the other approaches we have examined, anti-feminist literary criticism is often a political attack upon other modes of criticism and theory, and its social orientation moves beyond traditional literary criticism. It is somewhat unrealistic fluff. Millett wrote in Sexual Politics that “the essence of politics is power”. D. H. Lawrence’s literature is a record of the collective consciousness of patriarchy. It delineates women speaking men’s language and supplants the men’s career, but as fact, if women continue to speak as men do when they enter discourse, whatever they say will be alienated, just as John Thomas neglects the girls’ indignation.

Anti-womanism, as a marginal discourse appeared, did not get the academic community generally-recognized, whereas so many feminism works launched shock to be born. At least for this academic discourse, there are many concerns. For example, in some very formal academic discussion, as long as related to this topic, we missed to hear this argument: It is now a woman’s right to whether too much or too little; women’s nature and their social roles, as well as they want to get the relationship between the rights that may be fundamentally irreconcilable. It is to keep the discussion of which should and will be the leader between feminism and anti-womanism.

Bibliography

[1]Millet, Kate. Sexual Politics .London: Rupert Hart Davis, 1970,

[2] Wilfred L. Guerin, A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature [M]. Oxford University Press, Inc, 1994

[3]麻友世.女性主义第三浪潮的男性视角[J]. 北京师范大学学刊, 2006,(2).

[4]陈凤珍.女性艺术中反女性主义的文化症候[J]. 邢台学院报刊, 2005,(4).