In her prologue and tale, The Wife of Bath attempts to undermine current misogynistic conceptions of women. Her fight against the denigration of women has led to many feminist interpretations of her tale, most of which portray the Wife of Bath as some kind of feminist icon. However, through contradictions in actions and words, the Wife demonstrates that she conforms to many of the misogynistic stereotypes she is rallying against, thus undermining a feminist reading. Exploring the implications of the Wife's inconsistencies, particularly the resulting loss of her credibility, critic David Parker reinforces a non-feminist interpretation of the Wife of Bath in his essay "Can We Trust the Wife of Bath?" Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In the antifeminist tradition, writers accused women of being stupid, hateful, hypersexual, deceitful, and manipulative. The Wife of Bath references such literature in its prologue, such as its reference to Eve as "la los of al humane" (Chaucer 726), and also its mention of Janekin's book on "wicked wives." Throughout her prologue, the Wife attacks such representations of women, but by attacking them she reveals that they are true. Through her account of herself, the Wife is exposed to embodying most of the flaws that anti-feminist literature serves to accuse women of possessing. For example, the wife describes herself as sexually voracious, but contradicts this stereotype with another as she states that she only has sex to get money: “Win ​​anyone can, for everything is to sell; / With empty hands men cannot attract the hawks". ./ For having conquered the world, I have fed all its lust,/ And they have made me feel a false appetite" (420-423). Such an admission evokes images of prostitutes and immoral women who use their bodies to get what they want ; hardly the picture of the feminist ideal. Indeed, the Wife proudly admits to using sex to subjugate her husbands: "That is to say abedde hadden them meschaunce:/ Ther wolde I reproach and do he them no plesaunce;/ I woldde no more in the Stay in bed / If I feel his arm on my side, / Till he tell me his raunsons, then I will let him do his kindness" (413-418). He shamelessly uses her body as a commodity of exchange, mocking her husbands and withholding their satisfaction until they have promised her gifts The Wife is proud of her manipulative skills and even boasts that the ability to cheat is a gift from God given to all women: "For. every wit was given to us at birth:/ Deception, crying, spinning God has given / To be kind while they may live" (406-408). She does not see her deception or exploitation as wrong, nor does she explain that these actions are hers alone and are not representative of all women. Instead, she claims that all women have been granted the gift of deception. The Wife of Bath thus reinforces misogynistic stereotypes and undermines her own position as a defender of women. Furthermore, in the opening of her Prologue the Wife states that experience is her "auctoritee", since she has been married five times, she thinks of herself as a true expert. However, for some reason the Wife feels the need to go against her own assertion that experience is the only authority she needs and attempts to cite texts to support her claims: "'Whom that Nile be war on other men, / For he will be corrected by other men.'/ These same words Ptolemy writes:/ Rede in his Almageste and bring him hither" (186-189). However, this quote is not even found in Ptolemy's Almagesete, as you claim. In theattempt to appear more cultured and intellectual, it seems, the Wife simply makes herself look stupid. In his analysis, English professor David Parker argues that discrepancies in the Wife's descriptions of her fifth husband cast doubt on the veracity of her entire account. request. In her Prologue, the Wife of Bath describes Janekin as a husband who "beat her and then won her by making love" (Parker 55). Despite his abuse, the Wife says she loved Janekin more than all her husbands because he kept her fighting for the "maistrye." By her own admission, it was this search for control in the relationship that made her marriage so happy: "We women, if this I will not lie, / In this matere a quainte fantasy: / Wait, what could we not have lightly", / Then we will weep all day and long;/ You will forbid us what we desire;/ Press us hard, and then we will flee" (Chaucer 521-526). By rejecting the Wife's control, Janekin was keeping her interested. The Wife portrays this not only if herself, but all women as fickle creatures who love to be perpetually teased, if not dominated, by their husbands Then, later in her Prologue, the Wife describes the spat between herself and Janekin that leads to the resolution in which she gives in every. power in the relationship with her. Later, the wife states: "we never argued. / God help me, I was as kind to him / as any wife from Denmark to India, / and trewe too, and he was too me" (828-831). This happy ending, however, contradicts the Wife's earlier statement, and Parker points out that "to have been happy she would have, according to her analysis of the nature of women, to be continually frustrated in her struggle to the 'maistrie'" (55). Therefore, either the Wife's previous assumption about the nature of the "maistrye" is incorrect, or she has not actually gained complete control from Janekin. In any case, Parker argues, he undermined his own credibility. She is unreliable as a character, as she therefore cannot be made the poster girl for women's rights. She put herself, and all of the female gender, in a bad light. Further inconsistencies are found in the Wife of Bath's account. It's easy to take a feminist view of this story of a rapist knight who must discover what women desire most: "maistyre." In the end it would seem that the knight has learned his lesson when he relinquishes control of the marriage to his wife, who thus transforms herself into a faithful young beauty. The moral of the story seems to be that all women really want is control and once they get it, their men will be happier for it. However, this reading is undermined by the fact that it is unclear whether the knight actually has enough respect for the old hag to let her choose, or whether he is simply saying what he knows she wants to hear. After all, it seems that the knight really gave up nothing, for his wife then "obeyed him in every thing / That could please him or like him" (Chaucer 1261-62). Herein lies yet another contradiction: the Wife's "professed beliefs in female sovereignty in marriage...are not ultimately followed by the heroine of her story, who obeys her husband" (Parker 53). The Wife of Bath told her story in an attempt to advocate for more control of women in relationships, but she unintentionally created an ending that adheres perfectly to an anti-feminist ideal in which a woman is willingly subjugated by her husband. The Wife of Bath is an openly manipulative woman who uses her sexuality as a tool against men. It conforms to a number of misogynistic stereotypes about women's flaws and even makes it seem as if some of these stereotypes are characteristic of all women. The, 1985. 49-56.