Note: Yes I know this was written a hundred years ago, Im looking for legit discussion please.
Ive been reading Dracula and have noticed a lot of seemingly sexist themes throughout the first 13 chapters. Lucy is portrayed as a damsel in distress with no idea of whats making her ill. The men in her life seem to think she’s a child in need of caring for. When Helsing was doing the transfusions, he only asked the males to help and totally ignored the maids (who Stoker says were all very fond of Lucy, seems like they could’ve given a few drops).
The males in the book treat women like they are subservient and weak willed. Seward is very closed off and feels embarrassed at Helsing when he cries at Lucy’s demise. He treats any emotion as a weakness and continually attributes having feelings to women. Arthur isn’t much in this book so far, but for some reason he thinks giving Lucy his blood is a sign of marriage. Dracula himself keeps a harem and is intent on expanding it.
Despite this, Ive heard several points that make me think Stoker was an early feminist. Later in the book, Mina seems to save the day. She researches and uses modern science to help dispatch Dracula. The guys all say she has the “mind of a man”, which at first seem silly but rethinking it a little, maybe it means women can be taught the same way as men and therefore have the same capabilities.
Im debating on whether or not I want to keep reading and was curious as to the internets thoughts of this book and its ideals.
If we are even able to debate this, it was feminist in its time. Also, misogynist characters in a time when that was the default do not make a book misogynistic. I think its portrayal of women is more important than what the characters think. I haven’t read it so I don’t know, but based on your post I would say feminist leanings at the least.
It seems to be anti-female-sexuality. Every time a woman becomes evil she is suddenlt ‘voluptuous.’ The word is only used at key points in the novel. It seems that in the world of the story women can only be good if they have only an innocent desire for marriage, not a lustful desire for sex.
I’m reading it now, nearly done, but I also flip flopped on this. But on a certain point I almost took it as a poetic irony where “we must not tell Mina” Then “we must keep no secrets” then “we must not tell Mina”
But yeah, it’s a bit strange how everyone acts proud and “men must do men things” but Mina is kind of the most importaint character.
Definitely feminist, at least for the time. Mina is clearly the most capable character. The others mostly just bumbled around in a Scooby Doo way.
I think Stoker is also making comments on society and the shortcomings of the traditional male view. Also, how social norms can stunt ones own views of self and place in the world.
The OP refers to Helsing ignoring the maids as donors for the transfusions.
I view this as a result of the rigid structure of Victorian social levels. The upper classes would consider it inappropriate.
It’s a book set in Victorian society, aimed at Victorian contemporary readers. There’s a limit to how far you can deviate from the social norm without alienating the readers it was written for.
And there’s a lot of pragmatism as well. If you’re going to perform a new and risky operation like a blood transfusion, it makes sense to start with the big strong male volunteers instead of hassling the staff to pitch in.
Yes, the women thought of being obedient and dutiful wives as was the social expectation of them. So are the men. We start out with Harker dutifully writing to his wife every day. It doesn’t mean the women don’t have agency. Lucy was considering several suitors and had every freedom to turn them away. Mina was putting in serious work managing her husband’s estate and supporting his work as a solicitor.
But at the end of the day, women were dependent on men in Victorian society. And men carried the responsibility for their household on their shoulders. In a good marriage, that meant teamwork like Mina and Jonathan. And like Lucy was hoping for. In a bad marriage… well that’s why women campaigned for equal rights.
While it’s unlikely that Bram Stoker was anything like an organized and self-professed feminist. He clearly thought women could be competent, intelligent, and contribute. But that doesn’t change the time period of his life and his novel.
Okay since reddit is apparently going to keep this post at the top of my home page for 2 days, I guess I’ll add my thoughts…
Declaring something fully feminist or misogynist is just like. Not a useful way to do anything. For these purposes, feminism would be a critical lens through which to examine the work - one which should probably also work hand-in-hand with a historical lens for a book 100 years old. There’s going to be elements of both. It was written by a man a hundred years ago. Just by that alone there’s going to be problematic stuff in it, never mind the actual contents of he story. However, as any of the dracula daily tumblr girlies will tell you, there’s also plenty of character work that resonates strongly with a modern feminist audience that has good points to take away, especially depending on your interpretation.
Edit: Skimming some of the other comments has made me realize some of the words I want to use for this- I would say that judging dracula through a modern lens is probably misguided (though ngl I do thoroughly judge the twists several adaptations have made ever since that do make it MORE misogynistic imo), however I think analyzing it through a modern lens gives you all sorts of complicated answers to your question!