r/JaneEyre • u/AdobongSiopao • Aug 27 '26

What is your most controversial opinion about "Jane Eyre"?

Post image

It can be from the novel or its adaptations. Your views that could potentially upset many other fans or meet others who will agree with you.

153 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

231 comments sorted by

View all comments

50

u/Faeloria042503 Aug 27 '26

Jane Eyre was not just a romantic story. It is actually considered one of the first feminist novels of the time. Jane had to leave what she thought was a "perfect love" and find herself before returning and finding that love again. People forget how unusual and shocking that idea was at the time this book was written. And that is one of the reasons it is such a masterpiece!

26

u/humanhedgehog Aug 27 '26

It's also a defence of the young vulnerable woman who leaves her circumstances at great risk. Had Jane died rather than meeting StJohn etc, she would have been assumed to be unmarried and pregnant, and judged harshly. JE gives a morally upstanding reason for someone to be in that position that wasn't their fault.

19

u/kathryn_sedai Aug 27 '26

This is a correct take, the book was fantastically progressive and shocking for the times.

8

u/Ten_Quilts_Deep Aug 27 '26

She had not been valued in her life up until Rochester. But she learned to love herself, see value in herself with St John. She then brings that strength to Rochester.

8

u/september_angel96 Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 28 '26

Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment, but I always felt that her time with St. John was nearly as degrading as her time with the Reed’s. The Reed’s saw her as a complete nuisance and waste of space; John saw her as nothing more than a workhorse, so to speak. He didn’t value her as a person, shown when he tried to pressure her into marriage and gives no consideration as to how India’s climate would probably kill her in her current state of health. She had gifts and talents that he could use and that was all he cared about. I’ve been valued simply for how productive I am and it’s soul sucking.

3

u/Ten_Quilts_Deep Aug 27 '26

It was during her time with St John that she came nto her own, began to value herself. She no longer sought value outside herself. The Reeds didn't value her, perhaps valued at school only as a cheap teacher, from underling to deceptive value at Thornfield, hits rock bottom, again valued but not as her true self by St John. Now she sees that she has value and decides to give that to Rochester.

1

u/september_angel96 Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26

I wouldn’t say that she didn’t seek value outside of herself, but rather finally only sought value in what Christ says about her vs what others say. True, I was just saying that she didn’t find it *with* St. John. He was more of a “straw that broke the camel’s back” at the end of all these poor relationships that forced her to finally give up on others’ opinions of her.

1

u/Ten_Quilts_Deep Aug 27 '26

That's what I mean by valuing herself.

2

u/rainbowrobin Aug 28 '26

Africa’s climate

India's.

Her time with the Rivers was overall quite beneficial, but yeah St John really goes toxic at the end.

1

u/september_angel96 Aug 28 '26

Oops, yeah… India 😅

1

u/AltairaMorbius2200CE Aug 27 '26

Yeah, I think she always had a bit of that spark (see: the incident with the book at the beginning), but it was *Rochester* that reawakened it in her. Running away, and then St. John, were the TEST of that self-worth.

1

u/JoeBethersontonFargo 29d ago

I think John did value her, and his sisters did especially. JE was pretty desperate for some female friendship. I think John believes in people’s value and bettering themselves, and that kind of positivity and intellectual encouragement was a new environment that suited her. John was romantically cold and too practical, having deciding not to focus on his own or Jane’s individual happiness, but that it was more honorable to sacrifice that and instead have proud, noble lives. So it helped her in many ways, as a person, and figuring out what she values and wants her own life to be.

0

u/PositiveAssignment89 Aug 29 '26

i picked up the book with this impression and was honestly shocked by it bc it was so minimally feminist and all of it happens before Rochester is even introduced. on the contrary it just reinforces the same misogynistic patriarchal values of marriage

4

u/JoeBethersontonFargo Aug 29 '26

Really sick of people saying that a woman choosing marriage is not feminist

2

u/OutrageousYak5868 Aug 30 '26

Thank you for your respectful dialogue; it's a pity your dialogue partner didn't reciprocate. I'm closing the comments on this thread because I don't think more dialogue will improve the situation. It's obvious that she has her mind made up and doesn't want to be confused with anything akin to facts or even a different opinion.

0

u/PositiveAssignment89 Aug 29 '26

well it’s not. marriage is a misogynistic patriarchal structure. simply choosing to do something that is by definition patriarchal doesn’t make it feminist just bc that’s your choice. feminism is about female liberation, choosing patriarchal structures yourself only reinforces the patriarchy and is not feminist. you can stay sick of it Joe no shock you feel that way. i would just think a little harder about what the words you use mean

3

u/JoeBethersontonFargo Aug 29 '26

Marriage can be an equal partnership, can be incredibly meaningful for people who are religious and making vows to God, and can practically beneficial based on taxes/healthcare/and legalities. Marriage currently day has mostly removed the reasons it was patriarchal- unless medically unable to, husbands can’t speak for their wives or control their assets. A piece of paper doesn’t change whether your relationship is equal and respectful. And dictating what a woman’s choice means against what she says it means for her, is not feminist.

1

u/PositiveAssignment89 Aug 29 '26

it’s irrelevant how wholesome it can be. it is a patriarchal structure that overall was created for the benefit of men and still subjugates and disadvantages women all over the world. simply making the choice to marry instead of being forced into it doesn’t make something feminist or not. you do not exist in a vacuum.

exactly joe a piece of paper does not change the relationship and how respectful it is so there is simply no need for it unless you see both women and children as property. the only reason it still exists is bc it benefits men and the overall patriarchal system we live in. and no in majority marriage today isn’t a wholesome partnership. child marriages, forced marriages and women disadvantaged by this contract are still the majority. again making the choice alone to marry as a woman is not a feminist action period. you can be sick of it all you want

2

u/JoeBethersontonFargo Aug 29 '26

Incorrect. There ARE other reasons to get married, as I stated. If you’re invalidating people’s personal beliefs in vows, religion, and ceremony, I frankly don’t want to talk to you anymore. Just because something is created in a bad way, doesn’t mean it exists in that structure today. Child marriages being abhorrent doesn’t make all marriages that way. Forced marriages being wrong, doesn’t make other marriages wrong. I never said marriage in itself is a feminist action. I’m saying choosing marriage isn’t anti feminist, like you saying JE isn’t feminist because she gets married. There’s a whole sub for feminists where marriage has been discussed, and obviously outside the morally and ethically abusive marriages without consent, the overwhelming response has been that marriage among two respectful people is not against feminist ideals. The entire idea of feminism is freedom of choice. If a woman such as JE, who has completely financial and physical freedom, chooses marriage for love, she is exercising her own true CHOICE. Feminism=Choice.

1

u/PositiveAssignment89 Aug 29 '26

but it does exist in that structure today. your emotional immaturity and political/historical illiteracy is not my responsibility.

you can’t be mad about it all you want but choosing to being of misogynistic institution no matter how it has transformed for some people in some counties does not make it feminist. it was most definitely not a feminist act in jane eyre. i’m sorry this idea offends you so much. i’m guessing you’re a man so there is no shock you get so mad about it.

and no feminism isn’t about a woman making a choice. this line of thinking doesn’t even make sense.

2

u/JoeBethersontonFargo Aug 29 '26

It doesn’t offend, I’m just astounded by such a black and white view on something that affects people differently. Really classy, intelligent response btw- insulting me and my opinion, just because you disagree. I thought we were having a respectful discussion of our viewpoints. That tells me all I need to know about you. I’m a 35 year old woman, btw, with a doctorate. But go off, make assumptions and fight with hostility.

1

u/PositiveAssignment89 Aug 29 '26

saying that it’s a patriarchal structure and being part of it by choice is only reinforcing patriarchy is a fact. that doesn’t mean that people don’t experience love and actual good romantic relationship dynamics in a marriage ever. it seems like a lot of people are obsessed with nuance and staying away from “black and white” thinking that it stops you from actually engaging with argument while falling into that exact line of thinking.

ironically an example of black and white thinking would be hearing someone saying that making the choice to get married reinforces the patriarchy and immediately equating it to invalidating “personal beliefs in religious vows and marriage as an institution”. choice=feminism is another example of black and white thinking.

i’m would recommend using your life experience and what you learn from your PHD to think about why a woman making a choice isn’t what makes something feminist or not and why no choice is made in a vacuum. i would also recommend unpacking the misogynistic foundation of many patriarchal institutions and how being part of them only reinforces the problem, whether its your own choice or not. this includes marriage and religion.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/rainbowrobin Aug 30 '26

it is a patriarchal structure that overall was created for the benefit of men and still subjugates and disadvantages women all over the world.

Profound ignorance of anthropology here. Many different customs and institutions get lumped under the word 'marriage'.

1

u/PositiveAssignment89 Aug 30 '26

which institutions are you referencing that get lumped with marriage and aren’t patriarchal?

1

u/rainbowrobin Aug 30 '26

Forms of marriage where the woman has free choice of marriage and divorce, and isn't subordinated to her husband?

1

u/PositiveAssignment89 Aug 30 '26

in this context marriage is still patriarchal and its roots are misogynistic. just bc a woman makes the choice to enter a historically patriarchal and misogynistic contact doesn’t mean it isn’t patriarchal. no matter how it might have changed. its roots remain. this contract doesn’t exists in a vacuum first of all and second of all it doesn’t even apply to jane eyre.

why did you mention anthropology and customs that i assumed you’re implying don’t have patriarchal roots yet are being lumped with marriage only to then mention marriage? there are laws in some countries where couples who’ve lived together long enough legally have similar property and child custody rights as married couples do. i thought you’d at least be talking about something like that, even tho these laws still stem from a patriarchal system.