Misogyny In James Joyce's Written Language

Joyce, as a writer, has proved an outstanding development of his written language. A consequential problem of a more challenging nature invokes the possibility of an ethics, or ethical framework, to Joyce 's written language. This is not to presume to probe the conscience of a man, but rather to examine what moral structure or polity an author gives his language. "There are no moral phenomena at all," insists Nietzsche (1992: 275) "but only a moral interpretation of phenomena". Recognizing that language is simultaneously a phenomenon and an interpretation, the reader grimly notes how quickly a study of Joyce leads to paradox. The designation and positioning of impolite words effectively offer signposts for the terminal points of "good" that

His equivalent between Odysseus’s transformed staff and male clients of brothels implies that the blame for men’s ruined status belongs to outer female sources (such as a witch or prostitute) rather than an internal male one (such as lack of respect for females and their right to human dignity). Bloom’s unconscious is Joyce’s conscious mind, and Joyce’s perspective as revealed in Ulysses conforms to traditional patriarchal views of open female sexiness as risky, disgraces, and corruptive of men. Joyce’s view is actually at the most misogynistic end of the patriarchal scale, as he has separated the paces between temptress and whore, making them one and the same. In this chauvinistic viewpoint, Joyce’s Ulysses, affirms that men are the innocent victims of evil female influence and pernicious feminine sexual

He coerced her into participating in his unusual sexual desires and degrading sexual abnormalities. He cruelly refused to marry her, even after their children were born, and even though he knew that this might hurt her, ruined her reputation, and made her an exile from her native home. Perhaps intentionally making her ‘unmarriageable’ was a mindful strategy of his for keeping her dependent on him. Her position as an unmarried woman agreeably living in sin was extremely precarious. Swearing for swearing 's sake is not part of Joyce 's aesthetic and legitimate style for anyone who appreciates Joyce 's economy of language senses this instinctively. There is a pair of examples, in fact, which both ably demonstrate a similar scheme of swearing and signifies climactic instants in the thematic struggle with forbidden language. The twin moment of such dangerous but inherently ludicrous comes with the anticipated Stephen-Bloom intersection. If the Citizen is the defender of the faith, Private Carr is the loyal servant of the other of Stephen 's "two masters", "the imperial British state" (U: 24):

Private Carr: (Tugging at his belt) I 'll wring the neck of any bugger says a word against my fucking king. (U: 693)

And again, with more