Steinbeck uses Curley’s wife to reveal a common attitude towards women and expose the hypocrisy that allows Curley to visit whorehouses, but denies his wife the opportunity to just talk to other men. Candy says to her, ‘You gotta husban’. You got no call foolin’ aroun’ with other guys, causin’ trouble.’ This type of accusation suggests that Candy considers himself on the moral highground and Curley’s wife’s superior. This scrabble to avoid occupying the lowest rung in the social ladder evokes some pity.
Steinbeck uses a number of characters to represent groups of people and Curley’s wife is Steinbeck’s vehicle to explore men’s oppression of women and the way that they are treated as inferior. Curley’s wife is the only developed female character. The others, such as the women in the whorehouse, provide a service for men and are presented through their function rather than as people; their identities are irrelevant. Even with Curley’s wife Steinbeck has deliberately maintained a degree of anonymity, never revealing her name.
When having a stake in the dream had first become a possibility for Candy, Curley’s wife had arrived soon after, cruelly portraying Candy, Lennie and Crooks as they might appear to others, ‘a bunch of bindle stiffs – a nigger an’ a dum-dum an’a lousy ol’ sheep’. Her description of him as a ‘lousy ol’ sheep’ presented Candy as useless and at this point in the novel I felt some sympathy for Candy along with the other two characters under attack.
Candy went on to boast that getting them sacked would not matter as they had their own farm. She didn’t believe him. Then later, in an ironic twist, Curley’s wife’s death ensures that they do not, in fact, get their own place.
Candy is in a vulnerable position on the ranch. Because of having only one arm it was difficult for Candy to find work and he was particularly dispensable. After asserting himself and the others and declaring their independence from Curley and his family, I sympathise with Candy finding himself again reliant on Curley’s family’s charity as a result of Curley’s wife’ death
However, I find it difficult to wholly sympathise with a character that reveals himself to be such a misogynist. In the extract Candy calls her a ‘tramp’ and a ‘tart’, derogatory terms that are only applicable to women. Candy’s words are direct and vicious, he repeatedly uses the second person pronoun ‘you’ making his tone accusing and pinpointing his anger specifically on Curley’s wife. The misogyny extends beyond name-calling and perhaps this is representative of the men’s general sentiment towards her.
Furthermore, Candy blames Curley’s wife for wrecking his dream, expressing his hatred for her (‘… he said viciously. “You done it, di’n’t you?” ’), putting words into the dead body’s mouth, like forcing a false confession. I don’t believe that Curley’s wife can be held responsible for her own death and feel that Steinbeck always presented her as the underdog at the bottom of the hierarchy, not having her own name and simply referring to her as one of Curley’s possessions. I feel that it was easier for Candy to blame her for the loss of the dream. He had colluded with George to defer revealing her death and being Lennie’s best friend it had made it difficult for Candy to focus his blame on to Lennie. Instead, an ungenerous spirit is revealed as Candy directs his anger and misery at the dead body in front of him. He is unswervingly unforgiving of Curley’s wife: ‘ “You wasn’t no good. You ain’t no good now.” ’
