By: Jessica Mancini
March 15, 2025
Insecurity instilled by patriarchy encourages every man to seek out godhood, whether superiority is found as a ‘God,’ boss, or head of household, the desire to dominate reinforces social hierarchy, and social hierarchy reinforces the desire to dominate. Patriarchy creates two types of men; to focalize them through the words of Victor Frankenstein, there are “honour and reputation” and “wretches,” successes and failures, those who dominate the world and those who are dominated by the world (Shelley 31, 67). Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein explores the circular, inescapable, and harmful effects of patriarchy thrust upon men through the seemingly opposite, yet chillingly parallel lives of Victor and the monster, both suffering due to patriarchal expectations. Victor’s patriarchal harm is the result of his unequivocal embracement of his superiority, caused by expectation, ego, and legacy; whereas the monster’s patriarchal suffering is the result of his embracement of gentility and emotion, which are eventually squashed by expectations, judgment, and neglect. Although the causes of Victor and the monster’s hardship seem antithetical, the circular expectations and social reinforcement of the patriarchal status-quo interconnect ego with judgment and legacy with neglect. This marriage of contradictions is present within Frankenstein in Victor and the monsters' complicated relationship as creator and constructed, father and son, and dominator and submitter; however, despite their antithetical positions and narratives, they constantly endure, reflect, and reinforce each other’s suffering because patriarchy harms all. Bell Hook’s The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love, Gayle Rubin’s Deviations, and Maria Miles’ Ecofeminism theories aid in the understanding of the patriarchy’s suppression of male emotion and restriction of male relationships while bolstering the degradation of relationships and encouragement of ego driven infringement, penetration, and domination upon nature. Although the patriarchy may seem to affect Victor and the monster in antithetical ways, Frankenstein ends with both desolate, alone, and socially outcast––left with only their anger and rivalry.
Victor Frankenstein’s motivations, desires, and worldview are the result of patriarchal socialization; Bell Hooks’ The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love, defines patriarchy as “a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence” (17). The political-social system of patriarchy was alive, well, and reinforced throughout the Romantic period, with the era seeing some of the first widespread feminist literature combating patriarchal rule, such as Mary Wollstonecraft’s The Rights of Women (1792) and A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792). Hooks clarifies how, when, and where these political-social patriarchal expectations are most prevalent, citing familial gender roles and expectations as well as institutions such as “schools, courthouses, clubs, sports arenas, as well as churches” as primary avenues of patriarchal socialization (17). Shelley utilizes these same real-world political-social reinforcers of patriarchy to shape Victor’s life, inspiring and motivating his every decision–building upon her mother’s foundational ideas of patriarchy to illustrate the harm it causes to men.
Victor’s allegiance to patriarchy begins through observation of his parents, family friends, and childhood association–most importantly his paternal relationship with his father. Victor begins his story with his birth and early years, firstly describing his family lineage and father:
my father had filled several public situations with honour and indefatigable attention to public business. He passed his younger days perpetually occupied by the affairs of his country; a variety of circumstances had prevented his marrying early, nor was it until the decline of life that he became a husband and the father of a family. (Shelley 31)
Initial descriptions of Victor’s father and family reveal two fundamental truths instilled within young Victor. The first truth: Victor comes from a wealthy, affluent family with generations of success; this lineage inadvertently passes on the expectation that Victor too must be successful and secure a memorable lineage like his predecessors. The second truth Victor learns is the association of domesticity and family life with a “decline of life,” because it was only after Victor’s father completed his domineering success of the world that he was free to retire to the domestic realm (31). Submission to the domestic can only be perceived as a “decline of life,” because under patriarchy a man is only successful and whole when he is dominating (31). These initial associations and outlooks are reinforced by Victor’s recollection of the fall of family friend Beaufort from success to desolation (32). The story of Beaufort’s fall from a wealthy merchant to poverty expresses not only the two types of men under patriarchy (man of honour and reputation versus wretches) as described in the introduction, but the role of women under patriarchy. Upon Beaufort’s death, his daughter Caroline finds herself in a Wollstonecraftian plight as a “orphan and a beggar” (33). According to Gayle Rubin’s Deviations, women are traded as products from one man to another with value attributed to their role, such as ‘wife,’ ‘mother,’ ‘sister,’ etc. (46). After the death of her father, Caroline found herself with no title and relation to a man, but not for long as she was quickly acquired from the role of a daughter who served her father in sickness, to being saved by the role of ‘wife,’ to a much older man who preyed upon Caroline in her time of need–Victor’s father (Shelley 33). The status of women as objects traded between men is a belief Victor expresses within his language – he describes his mother as “commit[ing] herself to his [father’s] care; and after the interment of his friend, he conducted her to Geneva, and placed her under the protection of a relation” (33). Victor describes his father as taking on Caroline from his “interment” friend, essentially taking on the dead man’s responsibility, trading her from her father to her husband. Rubin’s theories of women’s roles are further reinforced in Victor’s phrase “protection of a relation” as relation refers to both her protection via connection to him, but also the shift in her title of relation from ‘daughter’ to ‘wife’ because of the trading of women between men (33). These foundational stories of Victor’s father, family, and family friends illustrate the initial adoption of patriarchal outlooks on success, legacy, and relationships that dictate Victor’s life throughout the narrative.
Relationships between men and boys are particularly difficult under patriarchy as the system relies on male competition. Victor was not in competition with his father because Victor’s father was retired within the domestic sphere, confident in the legacy of his son because throughout the narrative Victor constantly asserted his commitment to patriarchy and legacy though his hubris insistence of his success and superiority, “glory would attend this discovery” or “I alone should be reserved to discover so astonishing a secret” (44, 58). Victor’s outlook on success is reflective of Hooks’s assertion “[men’s] value is determined by what they do,” what they achieve and obtain in work, acquisition of money, and success (8, 94). Therefore, patriarchy thrives because it is built upon male competition, hierarchy, and ego––in doing so, all men are insecure because no man is ever secure within his role; there is always the threat of submission, leading to an existence of domination out of self-defense, in the hopes of protecting himself from domination of others. An example of both domination and the reinforcement of patriarchal higherarchy is the teachings of natural philosophy by Professor Waldman. The Professor becomes a mentor to Victor, encouraging his pursuit in becoming a “man of science;” however, the Professor sees himself as a similar god-like figure of patriarchy, describing Victor as his “disciple”–his follower, beneath him–and passes down the idea of “penetrating into the recesses of nature” in his lecture (Shelley 56, 54). Victor’s insecurities and hubris are exacerbated by his attendance at the University of Ingolstadt, as the homosocial environment exposes his desire for validation from his peers and mentors “I made some discoveries in the improvement of some chemical instruments, which produced me great esteem and admiration at the university;” despite this modest achievement he does not revel in it as, when given the choice between going home and pursuing greatness, he continues to choose ‘greatness’ (58-9). The homosocial environment of Ingolstadt is one of many examples of patriarchy as circular; although success and greatness seem antithetical to insecurity, it is insecurity that fuels the desire to succeed. The homosocial environment fosters competition among students and ‘great men of science’ with motivation for this competition and greatness being ego, insecurity, and misapprehension of ability passed down by superiors such as Professor Waldman’s lecture encouraging the penetration of nature.
Victor’s upbringing and patriarchal socialization instills a false sense of godhood, encouraging the infringement upon nature. Professor Waldman’s patriarchal lecture on the possibilities of natural philosophy place man and science above God and nature, “[men of science] penetrate into the recesses of nature, and show how she works in her hiding-places" (54). The sentiment of penetrating nature as a theme within Shelley’s Frankenstein reflects Romantic era sentiments of man––whether he be a scientist, industrialist, or pastoral artist––as disconnected yet infringing upon nature, such as William Wordsworth’s “Nutting” as a young man with sexual frustrations penetrates nature, as asserted through Wordsworth’s use of diction: “forc’d,” “virgin,” “voluptuous,” “play’d,” and “bower” (344). As Hooks points out “[men] were taught God was male” and “God created man to rule the world,” therefore, under patriarchy men obtain demi-god-like associations and rule over the world and all who live in it that are beneath their status (17). Feminist scholars, such as Maria Miles have come to call the phenomenon of male infringement upon nature: ecofeminism. In her text by the same name, Miles defines ecofeminism as the identification of “reductionist, mechanistic science and the attitude of mastery over and conquest of nature as an expression of capitalist patriarchy” (xviii). Although there is no mechanism mentioned within Frankenstein, Victor uses “electricity and galvanism” to penetrate nature and mechanize the creation of life (Shelley 45). A mechanism is “[t]he structure of, or the relationship of the parts in, a machine, or in a construction or process comparable to a machine,” but can also be used in a bio-chemical context to mean “[a]n ordered sequence of events involved in a biological, chemical or physical process” (Mechanism, N., Sense I.1.a., Mechanism, N., Sense I.2.c.). Therefore, Victor’s assemblage of parts to process in working order, like that of a machine, has mechanized both the creation of life and natural biology itself. Even the use of lightning, a force of nature, to bring the monster to life is an example of ecofeminism, as Victor asserts his dominance, his ‘mastery,’ over nature to exploit its resources for his gain. Ecofeminism will be revisited in the context of the monster, as ecofeminism does not relate exclusively to the exploitation of nature’s resources, but the resemblance of nature’s nurturing tendencies to that of women’s submissive and nurturing role to men.
Although Victor was not brought up under explicit patriarchal rule, such as judgment from an unapproving father, it is explicit patriarchal judgement which he passes on to the monster. Upon the monster’s creation Victor is disappointed in the aesthetics of his creation, unable to find the words to describe him “how can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I endeavored to form?” (Shelley 68). Victor’s favourite word to belittle the monster is ‘wretch’ – “[o]ne who is sunk in deep distress, sorrow, misfortune, or poverty; a miserable, unhappy, or unfortunate person; a poor or hapless being” (Wretch, N., Sense 2.a.). However, the monster––made in Victor’s image as God made man––has encompassed all the same negative descriptors Victor embodies, such as ‘distressed,’ ‘miserable,’ and ‘unhappy.’ The monster reflects what Victor hates most about himself, and what he hates most about himself is not his proclivity to sadness, but the extremes of patriarchy: rejection of femininity, and toxic masculinity’s approval of anger and violence (Hooks 5). Victor’s reaction and neglection of the monster reflects Hooks’ description of the paradoxical patriarchal father-son relationship,
Most patriarchal fathers in our nation do not use physical violence to keep their sons in check; they use various techniques of psychological terrorism, the primary one being the practice of shaming. Patriarchal fathers cannot love their sons because the rules of patriarchy dictate that they stand in competition with their sons, ready to prove that they are the real man, the one in charge. (46)
Victor, in trying to become a God, has damned himself to the position of a patriarchal father because, as Hooks points out, he attempts to utilize physical violence, psychological terrorism, and shame on the monster. Even if the monster had been aesthetically beautiful, Hooks draws attention to male competition and issues of legacy. When a son is worse than a father, as Victor feels towards the monster’s aesthetics, he is a disappointment to the father's legacy; however, when a son outdoes his father, as the monster does in physical strength and speed, he is a threat to the father’s dominance and manhood. Therefore, the monster never had a chance of being loved by his ‘father’ Victor, because as the perfect mix of patriarchal ego and insecurity, Victor seeks gratitude from the monster for creation, not the other way around, as indicated by his language “[n]o father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs” (Shelley 62). Victor’s neglect of the monster and impossible requirements for validation reflect Hooks’ observation “[m]other love is aplenty and apparent: we complain because we have too much of it. The love of a father is an uncommon gem, to be hunted, burnished, and hoarded. The value goes up because of its scarcity” (3). As observed in his own father, resigning to fatherhood means surrendering oneself to obsoletion from success and tangential alignment to the domestic, thus this ‘self-sacrifice’ is deserving of gratitude and God-like ascension. Therefore, in creating life and rejecting it, Victor not only further aligns himself within the patriarchy, but passes it on to the monster.
Patriarchy, as explored through Victor, exposes its effects upon the average participating man; however, patriarchy thrust upon the monster exposes the true harm of patriarchy to men. Victor’s rejection of the monster instills the first semblances of patriarchal insecurity as he is “denied the love they need to feel whole, worthy, [and] accepted” through Victor’s neglect, internalizing this neglect in the way he talks about himself, “lively conversation...were not for me. Miserable, unhappy wretch” (Hooks 96, Shelley 157). It is this neglect that inspires the monster to seek social validation from the De Lacey’s, along the way, discovering he is happiest embracing his gentility, compassion, and empathy “when they were unhappy, I felt depressed; when they rejoiced, I sympathised in their joys,” making deep connections with the family despite not being accepted, calling them “friends” and “protectors” and adopted nature as his mother, “maternal nature bade me weep no more” as she provided him with nourishment and comfort (146, 149, 154, 122, 134). The monster, despite rejection from his ‘father’ Victor, is able to embrace traditionally feminine traits and emotions. However, when compassion and understanding are not enough to obtain acceptance from his ‘friends’ the monster begins to accept his role, abandoning his gentility and accepting social judgements. This acceptance leads to anger and violence, as Hooks states, “[e]motionally abandoned by parents and by society as a whole, many boys are angry, but no one really cares about this anger unless it leads to violent behavior” (50). It is this neglect and shame from society that makes men into patriarchal monsters because as they become more engrossed in patriarchy, they are forced to lose their humanity (37). It is this allegiance to patriarchy that inspires Victor's desire to create life, sacrificing humanity for patriarchy; he creates the monster in his image under said patriarchal motivations, leading the monster to embody and parallel the most vulnerable and, paradoxically, most violent recesses of Victor’s masculinity.
The monster’s reflection of the extreme effects patriarchy has had on Victor is best illustrated in the murder of William, with the triggering line being “monster! Ugly wretch! ... Let me go or I will tell my papa” (188). Not only do the judgements of an innocent child, untainted by social expectations see the monster as a monster, but the use of Victor’s belittlement ‘wretch’ and the ability for the child to call for help from his father is a bitter reminder of the monster’s neglect, ugliness, and lonesomeness, provoking the monster. This moment also illustrates Hooks’ ideology that male relationships are unsustainable under patriarchy as, despite the monster being kind and compassionate, when presented and provoked to dominate, the moment does not go untaken (35). The envy the monster experiences motivates the murder, unable to accept another male, even a child––who can dominate him in words and be accepted when he is not–– illustrates Hooks observation “[b]oys brutalized and victimized by patriarchy more often than not become patriarchal, embodying the abusive patriarchal masculinity that they once clearly recognized as evil”––the monster has finally become the monster (28).
In the monster’s full acceptance of patriarchy, he comes to the same nature penetrating conclusion as Victor: the creation of life to appease his insecurity. As previously established, the monster had a loving, respectful, symbiotic relationship with nature, echoing that of pastoral poetry, such as Wordsworth’s “Michael.” However, unlike heroic and self-assured Michael, the monster is willing to commit Victor’s same offences for a female monster, a companion. Mies’s ecofeminist reading of this situation reveals the patriarchal entitlement both Victor and the monster possess, as “it is the same masculinist mentality which would deny [women] rights to our own bodies and sexuality, and which depends on multiple systems of dominance” that also oppresses nature (14). This oppression is evident when the monster clarifies “[o]ur lives will not be happy, but they will be harmless, and free from the misery I now feel,” as the monster’s motivation for companionship is not to share happiness but alleviate his feelings of wretchedness (Shelley 193). It does not occur to the monster that he desires the creation of a woman to livew in eternal servitude and unhappiness, echoing the motivations that lead to his own creation, neglect, and unhappy life. As a parallel to Victor, the monster has been exposed to similar examples of Rubin’s Deviations, seeing women only as their role of servitude towards men––an outlook made evident after the acceptance of patriarchy. Like the relationship of Victor’s parents, the monster desires a convenience marriage, where the female monster and he will be “more attached to one another,” however, not due to love, but their inescapable circumstance (193). The female monster will be created and traded between Victor and the monster for the purpose of male comfort, “[i]f it is women who are being transacted, then it is the men who give and take them who are linked, the woman being a conduit of a relationship rather than a partner of it” (Rubin 44). As ecofeminism emphasizes, it is this oppressive and exploitative mindset of commodification and dehumanization––as portrayed in Rubin’s Deviations––that transcends both feminism and ecology as the motivation for both the penetration of nature and subjugation of women: ego and insecurity instilled by patriarchy. The insecurity is comforted by the nurturing expectations of nature and women, whereas the ego is conditioned to resent and dominate them, illustrating the inability for patriarchal men to maintain relationships or truly love without threat of social degradation.
No man can prosper under patriarchy, whether one meticulously follows its teachings as Victor does, or tries to live outside of its judgements as the monster desires, as Bell Hooks asserts it is difficult to fight who one is told he is (28). The employments of Bell Hook’s The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love, Gayle Rubin’s Deviations, and Maria Miles’s Ecofeminism provide the terms, theories, and social criticisms to better understand the social and psychological mechanisms of patriarchy on both Victor and the monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, noting the progression of patriarchy from Victor’s childhood, to the homosocial bonding of Ingolstadt inspiring the penetration of nature, to paradoxically identifying and reinforcing the anger and violence within himself through the monster. The paradoxical nature makes it difficult for men to break free from the conditioning of ego and insecurity that leaves them stuck, but there is hope, as Bell Hooks asserts “[t]o know love, men must be able to let go the will to dominate. They must be able to choose life over death. They must be willing to change” (93). The conclusion of Frankenstein sees Victor die in pursuit of the monster for revenge, never letting go of his anger, violence, or competition, but wishing he could destroy the monster he created––the patriarchy he helped to perpetuate but simultaneously cannot overcome. Shelley’s mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, sparked the feminist discussion with her texts The Rights of Women (1792) and A Vindication of the Right of Women (1792); however, Shelley expands these early ideas of feminism and patriarchy to include men. There are two men under patriarchy: ‘honour and reputation’ and ‘wretches’ and unless there is a collective commitment to deconstructing patriarchy, what is natural – the domestic, feminine, and even humanity itself – will be ‘wretched.’
Works Cited
Hooks, Bell. The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love. New York, Atria Books, 2004. “Mechanism, N., Sense I.1.a.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford UP, June 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1065476696.
“Mechanism, N., Sense I.2.c.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford UP, June 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/6163526211.
Mies, Maria, et al. Ecofeminism. 2nd ed., Zed Books, 2014, https://books-scholarsportal-info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/uri/ebooks/ebooks8/bloomsbury8/2023-10-10/5/9781350219786.
Rubin, Gayle S. “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex.” Deviations, Duke University Press, 2011, pp. 33-, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11smmmj.5.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus. London, Arcturus Publishing. 2024.
Wordsworth, William. " "Nutting.” The Broadview Anthology of Romantic Poetry, edited by Laura Buzzard, Broadview Press, 2016. pp. 344-45.
“Wretch, N., Sense 2.a.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford UP, June 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/4355915427.
