Humiliation Of Jane

Humiliation Of Jane
A 15th Century Royal Mistress’s “Walk of Shame”
The oldest human burial in Africa uncovered
Republics Of Ancient India — Part II
The Bhagavad Gita in a nutshell — Dr. Ravi Ravindra
130 Years of the New Croton Aqueduct
Book Review: “What Is History?” (1961) by Edward Hallett Carr
An Open Letter to the 7AM Human Chirps
Glamma Gigi and the Lizard Invasion
Infidelity gave us all rights: No, I am serious
The Story of Edward IV’s Lover Jane Shore Inspired George R.R. Martin
In Season Five of Game of Thrones , Queen Cersei, imprisoned by a violent sect of the group Faith of the Seven, was forced to perform a Walk of Atonement, in which a “sinner” made her way a certain distance through a city stripped of all clothing, exposed to the eyes and jeers of the population.
Lessons from History is a platform for writers who share ideas and inspirational stories from world history. The objective is to promote history on Medium and demonstrate the value of historical writing.
Passionate about history, pop culture, the perfect bagel. Author of 5 historical novels. Latest book: ‘Dreamland’ www.nancybilyeau.com

Emma’s relationship with Jane Fairfax is nothing short of tumultuous.
Edgar F. Shannon Jr. author of, “Emma:
Character and Construction,” writes, “[Emma] has taken a dislike to Jane
Fairfax, who should have been her natural friend and companion and, believing
Jane to be the object of a married man’s attentions, has repeated to Frank the
slander she has concocted” (Shannon Jr. 638).
Emma, once again, reverts back to her old ways by slandering Jane
Fairfax, citing claims that are unsubstantiated to say the least.
This natural dislike, in Emma’s mind, stems from Jane’s supposed
inappropriate relationship with a married man.
However, this relationship is created in Emma’s imagination, leaving us
yet another hint to just how clueless the immature Emma can be.

Emma’s dislike of Jane Fairfax is less about Jane’s imaginary relationship, and
more about Emma’s immaturity and jealousy.
Goodheart writes, “In knowing herself, Emma would have to admit that she
is a creature of fancy with an irrepressible need to rule her little world”
(Goodheart 595-596). This is aptly
stated, as Jane Fairfax presents a threat to the world in which Emma lives.
Jane Fairfax is elegant, kind, and capable of wooing Frank Churchill,
Emma’s brief crush. As Knightly
points out, her dislike of Jane Fairfax came “because she saw in her the really
accomplished young woman, which she wanted to be thought herself” (Austen 156).
This lack of maturity breeds jealousy and it doesn’t take long for Emma
to retaliate in ways both passive aggressive and mean.

Austen writes of Emma harboring a natural dislike of Jane’s character, “Emma was
very willing now to acquit her of having seduced Mr. Dixon’s affections from his
wife, or of any thing mischievous which her imagination had suggested at first”
(Austen 157). This statement proves
untrue, as it becomes clear that Emma has not acquitted Jane of her imaginary
crime. During a lighthearted word
game, Frank Churchill and Emma gang up on Jane to humiliate her by placing the
word “Dixon” in full view, referring to her imaginary affair.
Frank Churchill, the future husband of Jane, proves to concoct this plan
out of jealousy himself, but Emma is all too eager to join in the humiliation,
as Emma, with “eager laughing warmth,” encourages Frank to embarrass Jane
(Austen 327). This passive
aggression is unwarranted, and clearly comes out of jealousy and a lack of
control. Minma writes, “Emma’s
sophistry, like that of her predecessors, is a means of justifying her own
conduct to herself; like them, she glosses over her unwarranted control of
others by subtle manipulation of motives” (Minma 51).
Embarrassing Jane is Emma’s pathetic attempt to lower Jane’s social
status, and here we see how Emma reacts to a woman who may slightly challenge
her role in society. Minma confirms
this by stating, “Rank and position are a sort of obsession with Emma, and
because of this preoccupation, as well as for the haughty and supercilious
attitude she frequently shows, she has been often called a snob” (Minma 54).
Emma’s obsession with class explains her humiliation of Jane Fairfax, as
no one has ever posed a threat to her elite social level.

However mean Emma’s treatment of Jane Fairfax, she does feel bad for what she
has done, as Austen writes, “She could not endure to give [Knightly] the true
explanation; for though her suspicions were by no means removed, she was really
ashamed of having ever imparted them” (Austen 328).
Feeling more shame than true remorse, the audience struggles to forgive
Emma.

Immediately after Emma’s humiliation of Jane Fairfax, Austen reminds us of the
immaturity Emma still holds, as she argues against Knightly’s assertion that
Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax are secretly in love with one another.
Knightly asks Emma, “Have you never at any time had reason to think that
she admired him?” to which Emma replies, “Never, never!” (Austen 328).
Emma continues to display her lack of insight as she states to Knightly,
“Oh! You amuse me excessively. I am
delighted to find that you can vouchsafe to let your imagination wander – but it
will not do” (Austen 329).
Ironically chastising Knightly for having an overactive imagination, Emma is
completely wrong in her argument.
Knightly once again proves the voice of reason and redemption, as he is able to
recognize the relationship between Frank and Jane, a relationship we in the
audience know to be very much alive.

Austen gives Emma a childish air, allowing us to see her as more girl than
woman. We know Emma can behave
poorly, but we also justify her actions because she falls in the favor of
Knightly. Knightly is clearly a man,
no longer a boy, and is capable of correctly identifying the thoughts and
feelings of the people around him.
Emma however, struggles to put herself in the shoes of those below her.
Although she is manipulative and mean, Emma shows enough of her childish
naivety to elicit sympathy. She has
not yet been redeemed; she is still very much a girl, but her maturation comes
after an incident with Miss Bates.
After this incident Emma is no longer able to offer an explanation for her
behavior, and is forced to fully recognize the error of her ways.

ARE YOU A LEGAL CONSUMER?
Find a Lawyer
Visit Our Consumer Site

Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

...

FindLaw

US Supreme Court Center

Legal Commentary

What Happens When GI Jane Is Captured?

Research
Cases & Codes
Opinion Summaries
Sample Business Contracts
Research An Attorney or Law Firm
Forms
Reference
Legal Commentary

Practice
Law Technology
Law Practice Management
Law Firm Marketing Services
Corporate Counsel
JusticeMail
Jobs & Careers

About Us
Company History
Who We Are
Privacy
Terms
Disclaimer
Advertising
Jobs
Cookies
Do Not Sell My Info

Social
Facebook
YouTube
Twitter
Instagram
Newsletters

Law Firm Marketing
Attorney Websites
Online Advertising

Marketing Resources
On-Demand Webcasts
White Papers

Copyright © 2022, Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
Just over one week ago, American television viewers saw disturbing images of American soldiers who had become prisoners of war (POWs) in Iraq. Among those taken captive was Specialist Shoshana Johnson, an Army cook - America's first female POW in the Iraqi conflict. Meanwhile, two other women were missing in action - Privates First Class Jessica Lynch and Lori Piestewa. (Lynch was just rescued yesterday.)
Seeing Shoshana Johnson - thirty years old, and the single mother of a two-year old child - held captive in Iraq bothered me more than I would have imagined. Like the male soldiers held with her, she faces a ruthless regime. Unlike them, however, she may also be the target of misogynistic treatment, and a potential victim of sexual assault.
Anthony Dworkin recently discussed, in a column for this site , some of the protections the Geneva Conventions offer all POWs. But what, if anything, in the Geneva Conventions protects women POWs, in particular?
Before addressing that question, it's worth examining the history of women in the U.S. military in recent years, and of women as POWs, to provide some context for the Conventions' guarantees.
Women's Role in the U.S. Military Now and In the Past
Overall, more than 200,000 women currently serve in the armed forces. These women make up 15 percent of both the enlisted ranks and the officer corps, 6 percent of the Marines, and 19 percent of the Air Force.
These women serve in a wide variety of positions. In part, that is because in 1994, during the Clinton Administration, the Pentagon discarded the "Risk Rule," and authorized women to serve in any military post other than in frontline infantry, Special Forces, or armor or artillery units.
As a result, women reportedly now are allowed to hold 52 percent of active-duty positions in the Marines - about a twofold increase since the 1994 rule change. Women in the Army can hold 70 percent of such positions. And women in the Air Force and Navy can perform in 99 percent of such positions. For example, women in the Navy can now serve on ships, though not on submarines. Women in the Air Force can now fly combat missions.
American women have been in combat ever since Margaret Corbin replaced her fallen husband behind cannon during the Revolution. But this war promises to involve more women in combat than ever before.

Meanwhile, due to the nature of modern warfare, and the war on Iraq in particular, a soldier can be in serious jeopardy whether or not he or she is technically in a combat unit. There is no longer a clear "front" line.
Thus, support units, whose job is maintenance or supply, can find themselves in grave danger. For instance, Shoshana Johnson and her fellow POWs were a maintenance crew in a convoy that got ambushed.
Women as POWs Throughout U.S. History
Long before the 1994 rule change, there were women POWs. During the Civil War, for example, Dr. Mary Walker was imprisoned for four months by the Confederacy, accused spying for the Union Army. (Doctor Walker is the only woman to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor.)
During World War II, more than 80 military nurses, including 67 from the Army and 16 from the Navy, spent three years as prisoners of the Japanese. Many were captured when Corregidor fell in 1942. The nurses were subsequently transported to the Santo Tomas Internment camp in Manila in the Philippines - which was not liberated until February of 1945. Five Navy nurses were captured on Guam and interned in a military prison in Japan.
Meanwhile, during the 1991 Gulf War, there were two American female POWs: an Army Flight Surgeon, Major Rhonda Cornum, and an Army Transportation Specialist, Melissa Rathbun-Nealy. Cornum was subjected to "sexual indecencies" within hours of her capture. (She was released eight days later, but said nothing in public about the sexual assault for more than a year.)
And women, like men, have been casualties of war. According to various reports, there have also been nearly 1,000 women killed in action since the Spanish American War. Women casualties include including two aboard the USS Cole when it was attacked by terrorists in 2000, sixteen in Desert Storm, and eight in Vietnam.
The Geneva Conventions of 1949 govern the treatment of soldiers and civilians during armed conflicts. The Geneva Convention III relates to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The August 1949 treaties, whose signatories include the United States and Iraq, took effect on October 21, 1950, after the Nuremberg war crimes trials in Germany. They continue to apply now.
With respect to POWs generally, Article 13 of Geneva Convention III requires that they "must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention." And Article 3 (common to all four Conventions) prohibits "violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons" including torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental. Such acts of violence "remain prohibited at any time and in any place. . ." with respect to persons being detained.
The Geneva Convention III says relatively little about women - primarily because, at the time it was drafted, women were not involved on the battlefield to the same extent as men.
It does provide some privacy guarantees for women, however. Article 25 states that women prisoners must be housed separately from the men. And Article 29, which deals with hygiene and medical attention states that "[i]n any camps in which women prisoners of war are accommodated, separate conveniences shall be provided for them."
Meanwhile, Article 14 provides an equality guarantee of sorts for women POWs. It says that "women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favorable as that granted to men."
As with domestic laws, there is a question as to how far this equality guarantee requires additional safeguards for women, beyond what men are entitled to. Some commentators argue that it does, for women have specific needs arising from gender differences, honor and modesty, and pregnancy and childbirth.
Other specific protections are also included. Women prisoners who are being disciplined are required to be confined in separate quarters under the immediate supervision of women - apparently to prevent any risk that an isolated women might be subject to sexual assault or mistreatment.
In addition, all women POWs who are pregnant or mothers with infants and small children are to be conveyed and accommodated in a neutral country. Shoshana Johnson, as the mother of a 2-year old toddler, would seem to qualify.
And more generally, under international humanitarian law, the ill-treatment of persons detained in relation to armed conflict is prohibited.
Meanwhile, civilians taken captive are meant to be afforded similar protections pursuant to Geneva Convention IV. Women are to be protected "against rape, enforced prostitution or any form of indecent assault." Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, relating to civilians, notes that "women shall be the object of special respect and shall be protected in particular against rape, forced prostitution and any other form of indecent assault." One need only remember the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, however, to see that rape has often been used against civilian women during armed conflict. Finally, with respect to relief shipments for civilians, Convention IV notes that "expectant mothers, maternity cases and nursing mothers" are to be given priority.
Potential Remedies: Red Cross Factfinders and War Crimes Tribunals
Iraq has claimed publicly that it is adhering to the Conventions. But the recent video footage of American POWs has given others a different impression.
In addition, past history leads to reasonable fears that woman POWs will be mistreated by Iraq in ways particular to their gender. Consider, for instance, the sexual assault suffered by Major Cornum. Will there be any recourse if women are, in fact harmed or mistreated?
The answer is: Perhaps during the war, and certainly after the war.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) - which drafted the original treaties - serves as a fact finder with respect to possible violations. During war, the ICRC attempts to protect military prisoners of war, civilians caught in war zones, and wounded or sick service members.
An ICRC delegate who witnesses disturbing violations at a jail, hospital, or other facility has the duty to report it to the ICRC, who advise the victim what to do. Thus, if U.S. POWs are mistreated in Iraq, and the Red Cross is let in to see them, and they feel comfortable reporting their mistreatment, there may be some recourse for them.
But all of these contingencies may not actually become reality - and remedies may have to wait until the war's end. At that point, a special war crimes tribunal may well be created in order to prosecute individuals for "grave breaches" of international humanitarian law.
Not all violations of the law of war, indeed not all violations of the Geneva Convention, are grave breaches. "Grave breaches" are defined in the Geneva Convention III to include intentional killing, torture, or inhumane treatment.
Today, such breaches would include sexual violence against women POWs. Such violence, under international law, is criminal.
Both the Red Cross and the international community - through war crimes tribunals - should insist on strict adherence to Geneva Convention III, for men and women prisoners of war alike, and equally.
Unless women prisoners are truly protected equally - meaning that they are protected when it comes to gender-specific crimes and with respect to crimes with gender-specific additional impact - the equality of women in the military will itself be imperiled.
Sex Crimes In War May Also Be Breaches of International Humanitarian Law
As the ICRC has previously stated, "although both men and women are subject to sexual assault, a distinction needs to be drawn between them. Sexual torture as such, particularly during interrogation, with its full spectrum of humiliation and violence can, and often does, culminate in the rape of the victim, and is more common with women prisoners. In male prisoners, direct violence to sexual organs is more common during this same phase."
To note this is not in any way to minimize the terrible things that may happen to male POWs. But it is to say that women do face a special risk: the risk of rape, and of being pregnant as a result of rape.
To cope with a pregnancy as a result of rape is terrible enough, and is made all the worse by being in detention. Women may also be forced to terminate their ongoing pregnancies against their will.
Other abuses inflicted on POWs, while not suffered solely by women, could be worse for women than men. They might include bea
Knocking Up Mom Stories
Ts Isabelly Killer
Hentai High School

Humiliation Of Jane

Report Page