In my view, Miller’s portrayal of women can be seen as sexist, although not as strongly as Betty Caplan’s portrayal. I also believe that Miller gives women abstract authority, which cannot be seen or measured, but instead resides in the deep desires of every man. In “The Crucible,” it is the men in the court who hold concrete power and authority.
According to Caplan, in Salem, suspected witches were sentenced to be hanged because a feared male-dominated theocracy felt threatened by women. The underlying fear was the suppression of their own sexual desires towards women. Caplan further explains that the authors of Malleus Maleficarium were highly disturbed by the possibility that witches could use magical illusions to make the male organ appear completely detached from the body.
If denying women power is not the case, then what is? The main source of fear for the Puritans is the ability to strip a man of his identity. Both Parris and Proctor believe that by surrendering their emotions to women, they would be giving up a part of themselves, which they are unwilling to do. Miller’s portrayal of Abigail Williams is the primary reason why I agree with Betty Caplan that his depiction of female characters is sexist.
Introduced as a stunning seventeen-year-old orphan, she possesses the ability to deceive effortlessly. This initial portrayal persists throughout the entire play, with no indication of redemption or character development. Caplan further observes that Miller has unequivocally condemned her from the outset, demonstrating a lack of compassion.
When Proctor, who is considered saintly, utters the word “whore”… I do not detect any disgust in you.
… no desire to allow her to speak the truth. She has none for you. These labels of Miller, implying that he lacks empathy for women, might be a representation of the stereotyping Miller experienced during his upbringing.
Miller’s upbringing during World War II and the post-war McCarthyism era in America meant that he was constantly labelled and typecast, especially as he was born to Jewish immigrant parents. Furthermore, Miller himself experienced the communist “witch-hunts” in America in 1956. He was summoned before a court and required to reveal the details of individuals he believed to be communist or who had previously been associated with communism.
Regarding the statement that “Men abused women in the 17th century and Miller is abusing them in the 20th century,” I disagree. In my opinion, Miller deliberately portrays a sexist approach towards women in his play. I believe he does this to demonstrate how uncertain times can lead to erroneous judgments of character.
The town of Salem in the 17th century was filled with close-minded and fearful individuals who hesitated to judge others because they feared being judged themselves. Arthur Miller’s recognition that Abigail Williams’ character has limited potential for growth and his portrayal of her in a sexist manner should not be seen as ignorant. Instead, Miller’s intention is to draw attention to the restrictions enforced by a puritanical society and how it can drive certain people to take extreme actions. It is incorrect to perceive Abigail Williams as a vehicle for Miller’s hatred and misogynistic ideas, as suggested by Caplan. Rather, she serves as a reminder to all readers about the importance of fairness, open-mindedness, and impartiality when assessing a character.
According to Martin Luther King, the evaluation of people should not rely on their religious beliefs or political ideals, but rather on the substance of their character. It appears that this notion has been ignored by all individuals in the play, a situation reminiscent of Arthur Miller’s experiences during the McCarthy era. If gender influences how readers interpret the play, then Miller may have struggled to effectively convey his ideas to a wider audience. This is because if women perceive certain female characters as being portrayed in a sexist manner while men do not, Miller has not achieved universality in his message.
Overall, there are differing interpretations of the play. While some argue that the author does not purposefully promote sexism, but rather caters to a specific group of readers, others acknowledge that individuals will have varying opinions on topics like the hysteria caused by Abigail in the court.
Some may admire Abigail’s persuasive power, while others may be astonished by Danforth and the court members’ naivety. Critic Betty Caplan sees the hysteria Abigail creates as an attack on women, presenting it as a spectacle of female insanity. However, I believe Caplan underestimates Miller’s skill as a playwright and could unintentionally be playing into his hands. If I were Miller and read this response, I would not feel disappointed; instead, I would appreciate the impact I have had on the reader. This may be exactly what Miller intended to convey.
According to Miller, Proctor is the central character in the play and he may be providing female readers with a glimpse of the discrimination they would have encountered in 17th century Salem.
Proctor serves as a lens through which we gain insight into Miller’s intentions and his various thoughts and interpretations, particularly regarding women. In the opening of act 2, Elizabeth has prepared a stew for Proctor, which he humorously seasons without her knowledge. Caplan concludes that Proctor’s actions imply that he finds Elizabeth lacking in sweetness.
According to Caplan, I agree that this interpretation of Miller’s intentions is valid. It also demonstrates Proctor’s desire to rebuild a troubled relationship and make it loving and successful. If he didn’t care about his wife, he wouldn’t have put in the effort to improve the dish initially. Some argue that Miller’s portrayal of women in this scene is sexist because the woman is cooking for the man instead of vice versa. However, we must consider whether this depiction is truly sexist or simply an accurate representation of the role of a housewife in 17th century Salem. I believe that the latter perspective holds more validity.
The most impactful moment in the play occurs when Proctor is led away to be hanged. Instead of confessing to the court, he confesses to God privately. This should be sufficient if Danforth truly wishes to save Proctor’s soul. However, Danforth’s intentions are different – he wants to display the power of theocracy in the village by having John present the signed paper to the court. This act will allow the oppressive nature of theocracy to intimidate every citizen, ensuring compliance with religious rules and preventing any objections to the unjust rulings.
Proctor can be seen as a symbol of rebellion and resistance. He refuses to let unjust rules strip him of his self-worth, standing up for himself and instilling hope in the village. His statement, “I am no Sarah Good or Tituba!” suggests a potential shift in society and serves as Miller’s way of expressing his intentions in the play. Miller suggests that in a corrupt society, individuals who act in accordance with their perception of what is morally righteous in the eyes of God, rather than blindly following the powers that be, offer hope for positive change. This notion remains relevant in contemporary society. The allegory that Miller employs to convey his ideas to the audience is particularly impactful.
The scenario closely resembles the events of the McCarthy era in America, with both illustrating a society where individuals are frequently too afraid to act on their beliefs. Echoing the words of Confucius, “To know what is right and not do it is the worst cowardice,” Proctor refuses to fall victim to this fear, and Miller hopes that every reader of his play will follow suit.
Miller clearly holds strong opinions about the ideas that pertain to his own society. He believes that individuals have a shared responsibility towards humanity. This is evident in his play “A View from the Bridge,” which explores the clash between personal desires and the moral responsibilities of a community. These themes directly correlate with those present in The Crucible, as Caplan concurs that fear of men is the underlying cause for the constraints within puritanical societies.
The text suggests that individuals are afraid of their inherent biological desires that lead them to have sexual attraction to women. They suppress these desires in order to appear morally pure in the eyes of God. Similar to the character Eddie in “A View from a Bridge,” the main character Proctor is rejected by his family for not conforming to their perceived correct values, similar to how he is viewed by the Theocracy. In conclusion, while I agree with Betty Caplan’s claim that Miller’s depiction of women is sexist, I also believe that Caplan has underestimated Miller’s skill as a playwright. Miller intentionally portrays female characters in a sexist manner as a reflection of the 17th century Salem time period and to highlight the mistakes of that society so that contemporary society does not repeat them.
Millers main intention in the book is to depict the flaws of the puritanical society, reflecting both the contemporary society and the society Miller witnessed during the post-war, McCarthyism era in America.
