It is preposterous and illogical to assume that Marie Antoinette, the foreign Queen of France, was indeed a traitor responsible for the turmoil of the country because she was simply a wealthy woman of power made out to be a villain of circumstance by people trying to rationalize a situation in which they did not fully comprehend, which ultimately turned out to be a simple place of blame.
During the period leading up to the Revolution in France there were certain expectations as to how a woman should behave, and Marie Antoinette did not meet any of these expectations. In fact, she exhibited the opposite behaviours as women were expected to be meek, submissive, and loyal. Marie Antoinette on the other hand was out-going, confident, and loud. In his book called Emile, Rousseau argues that women should take a more active role in the family by raising and educating the children, but not be involved outside the home. Even though many women disagreed, no one cared enough to change this. Although most women in France worked as peasants, shopkeepers, and laundresses, they were defined by their gender and matrimonial
…show more content…
The revolution was inevitable because the people were unhappy, and no person in a position of authority cared enough to do anything. Although it is understandable why the people revolted, the lengths the people went to personally attack the Queen was clearly excessive, as she didn’t do anything wrong. Yes, one can argue that she lived a very frivolous lifestyle and spent a lot of money, but she was just a young intelligent girl from Austria who married into wealth and an unhappy marriage, who had no position of authority in politics. So how could she possibly be responsible for the turmoil of