“The process of denial involved they describe as ‘social castration’… the point of the

word ‘castration’ here is that to achieve acceptability and femininity [women] must lose
power… namely power over their own destiny” – Beginning Theory, by P. Barry

To what extent is the monster’s experience of being ostracised,

demonised and “social castrated” in society, used as an
allegorical symbol of the exclusion and social castration of
women during the Romantic era?
In the gothic science-fiction novel "Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus," Mary Shelley
skilfully weaves a narrative that delves into the profound trials faced by the protagonist,
Frankenstein. Shelley's evocative prose compels readers to sympathize with the monster, who
is relentlessly Othered, denied fundamental rights, and deprived of education. Notably, these
elements bear a striking resemblance to the plight of women in the 18th century. Shelley
masterfully presents female characters who are confined within the restrictive boundaries of
the domestic sphere. Through this parallel, the novel invites us to question whether the
neglect and remorse we feel for Frankenstein's mistreatment should not equally extend to the
similar tragedies faced by women of the time. Employing a Feminist Lens, this investigation
interprets the conception of the Monster by the male protagonist, Victor, as an allegory
representing the subjugation of women. Mary Shelley's familial connection to early feminism
and her own position as a prominent female author further amplify the relevance of this lens.
Inspired by Mary Wollstonecraft's quote, "I do not wish [women] to have power over men;
but over themselves," we extend the feminist lens to illuminate the experiences of women
who have been stripped of their autonomy. Through an analysis of the societal constraints
obstruct agency, access to education, and the way the literary canon excludes both women
and the monster, “Frankenstein" becomes a thought-provoking exploration of gender
dynamics and a powerful call for women's liberation in the face of patriarchal structures.
From the outset, the epigraph of the novel, that story of Milton’s Paradise Lost is central to
the story. The monster resonates with story of Paradise Lost as it touches his plight – but also
interestingly, it is from such works that the plight of women can be observed. It is the
predominance of works authored by males and palpable absence of works authored by
females in the literary canon, not on due to disparity in merit, but in due to societal
expectations that exclude women, that “socially castrate” women, into engage in society. The
literary canon that monster reads upon entering the De Lacey’s family: “they consisted of
“Paradise Lost, a volume of Plutarch’s lives, and the Sorrows of Winter” – the monster
exposed to an exclusively male canon, whilst the second book 48 autobiographies of Greeco-
Roman famous figures, also all contain men. Women are excluded. Frankenstein itself was
published anonymously due the conforming of social pressures, and such “social castration”
only exclude women. It is perhaps for this reason that monster also bears no name, similar to
how Shelley is excluded from literary circles, the monster embodies the lack of individuality
women are forced to forsake that Quite similar are Shelley and the monster in their plight,
both needing to explore a foreign canon to find resonance Shelley is unique in that she could
explore the works of her deceased mother; women would not have the liberty of reading an
authentic female voice. In the monster bearing no name, it serves as the allegorical purpose of
exposing the women who must lose power over their individuality, who they are, to” achieve
femininity”.
We witness how the monster is inculcated with the same hostile attitude towards females in
the novel, particularly towards Safie who the monster calls “The Arab” – stripping her off
individuality and omitting her basic pronouns. “had not Felix”, “He had chosen”, “he said” ,
with “the instructions which Felix bestowed upon the Arabia. “The Arabian sat at the feet of
the old man” “I improved more rapidly than the Arabian” “Felix bestowed upon the Arabian”
– Felix in the same the voiceless, characterless, and one-dimensional Safie – Safie caught int
the Venn diagram of being “the Arabian” (ethnic Other) and the “second sex” -- is the object
acted upon, whereas the Felix is the subject, the perpetrator. The monster also describes
Agatha as the “young creature” highlights in desperate attempt to learn the prevailing human
culture so that he may integrate, he learns the marginality applied to women, yet ironically,
he learns the very ‘hostility to the Other’ that will also shun him from acceptance.
The way a phallocentric literary canon shapes the gender stereotypes is evident in De Lacey,
the only character De Lacey is not only blind in that he cannot explore the subliminal
prejudices of a phallocentric canon, but that he is symbolic in that he is blind to the prejudice
that would plague the Romantic Era.
The patriarchal dynamics in which the monster learns, the direct verb in “Felix instructs
Safie” With the De Lacey “raise[d] [him] from the dust by such acts of kindness” and who
the monster describes as “my best and only benefactor” it is clear then the prejudices are
blind, they do not discriminate. As De Lacey expresses to the monster “Do not despair. The
hearts of men when unprejudiced by any obvious self-interest are full of brotherly love and
charity” -- despite De Lacey addressing the monster, he simultaneously implicitly addresses
the plight of women. This allegory continues as we witness the witness how the arrival of the
family; the Monster is excluded once his status as the “Other” was recognised.
There is a correlation between the experience of the monster and the experience of the
monster. The monster, despite ironically being a male in form, is Othered and shunned due to
his “hideous and gigantic stature”..
Victor having his mother die through childbirth and Shelley’s mother dying through, the
Shelley cannot resist from this book from being biographical.
Shelley invokes the infamous poem Paradise Lost quoting: “Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay /
To mould me man?”, it aptly describes the plight of women. It is not untenable that such thoughts
could also be that of Shelley herself, blighted by the loss of her mother at a young age, tormented by
her abusive step-mother and distraught by the loss of her first daughter, Shelley’s life was not a ride
in the park. Such sentiments compel a philosophical anti-natalist interpretation an idea that Shelley
could have been exposed due to the radicalism of her philosopher husband Piercy Shelley. But more
saliently, the resonance with the text by the monster, despite him not being a man, highlights the
need by the Monster to adapt non-inclusive literature for his own predicament. To have a canon to
be inclusive for the likes of the monster may be understandingly mighty task, but for it to not be
inclusive for half of the human population is unforgivable. It in this sympathy that is aroused from
the ‘Othered’ monster attempting to find r

esonance in an unaccommodating phallocentric canon, that we are exposed to the plight of women.
Such a canon does not only exclude a diverse perspective, but it also perpetuates the enforcement
of the “social system which inexorably locks her and denies her autonomy”. This is the evident in the
frequent mention of Milton’s Paradise Lost, a book that undeniably enforces the gender constructs
the permeate the book with Milton writing:

Not equal, as thir sex not equal seem’d;

For contemplation hee and valor form’d,

For softness shee and sweet attractive Grace,

Hee for God only, shee for God in him

It is here that the very binary masculine-feminine dualism, constructs the gender stereotypes that
the French feminist Hélène Cixous states is equivalent to a ‘Superior/Inferior’ metaphor.

We witness how the idea of the women being peripheral extends as a motif throughout the
novel as witness the depiction of female characters lack the multi-dimensionality afforded to
that of the of the male characters. All characters in book intimately revolve around the binary
projection explored in Gilbert and Gulbert’s the Madwoman in the Attic, Frankenstein’s
betrothed being the angel in the house. With her being under his “gentle and feminine
fosterage”, she is described as submissive, self-sacrificing as docile. The one-dimensionality
is exposed, due to the epistolary form in which the Masculine perspective is the lens in which
we look through at the world, Elizabeth being described as the “the beautiful and adored
companion of all my occupations and my pleasures”, the obsession with the external stands
as a testament to her perceived utility by the Male Gaze1. We witness how the depiction of
Elizabeth is follows the trope as other females in the literary canon, such as that of Cinderella
and Snow White. The most damning example in the novel that exemplifies the stripping of
individuality and agency is in Chapter 1 in which Victor’s mother states to Victor that she has
a “pretty present”, and then “presented Elizabeth as her promised gift” to which Victor
“received [her] as made to a possession of [his] own” and “till death she was mine only”. The
use of the alliteration in “pretty present” accentuates to reader to the diction employed, these
words connote, but more accurately denote, the societal commodification and the reduction of
women to that of vanity for the Male Ego. This interpretation is remorseful of the diatribe of
the Monster whose creation was not out of compassion or love, but rather also vanity for the
Male Ego. Victor alludes to how the “new species would bless me as its creator and source”
and how it would “owe their being to me” – the monster is also the product of a pursuit for
glory, which Victor says he “preferred…to every enticement placed in his path”. If the
readers for a second are to sympathise with the emotionless, void of love creation of
Frankenstein, what are they to make of the transactional relationship between the Elizabeth.
Similarly, the historical autonomy – or the lack thereof – that woman has experienced,
provides an appropriate mirror between the autonomy to exist by the Monster, and the
autonomy of women to choose a vocation and life of their own. The epistolary form of the
book makes confinement of women to the private sphere, via social norms more pronounced
an idea popularised but what Charlotte Gilman calls the “The Yellow Wall-Paper”, as
Frankenstein is permitted to “satiate [his] ardent curiosity with the sight of a part of the world
never before visited, and… tread a land never before imprinted by the foot of a man”, the
woman is confined and expected in the confines of her gender stereotype to stay at home,
1
(feminist theory, the male gaze is the act of depicting women from a masculine, heterosexual perspective
that presents women as sexual objects for the pleasure of the heterosexual male viewer).
assumes child-rearing responsibility, this stereotypical expectational is evident in the
euphemistic language in which Victor describes Elizabeth as “having a calmer… disposition”
– we witness the perpetuating of the idea that women are be passive, submissive and meek,
stripping them of agency, it is here that we see the ideas of P.B Barry idea of “social
castration” and the relinquishing of her own destiny for her “need to accept femininity”.
This links to Frankenstein’s deprivation of education and schooling acts as an allegorical
symbol to the en masse lack of female participation during the Romantic Era. Marry
Shelley’s own exclusion of education is often overlooked by her ability to self-educate using
the libraries of her parents – a luxury not available for other women excluded from education.
Shelley denied this right whilst her stepbrothers, such as William Godwin, were granted this
right to education must have been a grievance that bled its way into book. In this way, the
women being deprived of educations bears direct parallel with the monster’s plight to seek
education – resorting to self-education.
The sympathy aroused from the monster’s exclusion from society despite his sincere attempt
to integrate through ingratiating himself with the De Lacey family, and immersing himself
into a canon that is ultimately foreign to him, eclipses the plight of women who, like Safie
and Elizabeth, have their agency stifled and are excluded, to the private sphere. Despite the
nature of the plight of women are like that of the monster, ultimately, the novel serves the
lesson of teaching us about how one is fictional and one is real.

. It is perhaps for this reason that monster also bears no name, similar to how Shelley is
excluded from literary circles, the monster embodies the lack of individuality women are
forced to forsake that similar are Shelley and the monster in their plight, both needing to
explore a foreign canon to find resonance.