Marriage Rejection: A Feminist Study in Katie Fforde's Going Dutch
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15642/NOBEL.2025.16.1.35-49Keywords:
representation, femisnism, marriage rejection, Katie Fforde's Going DutchAbstract
Instead of predominantly functioning to protect women, many toxic marriages even legitimize and institutionalize patriarchal oppression. This has sparked feminist criticism, as in Katie Fforde's novel Going Dutch. Featuring a female character who rejects marriage and lives independently, this study aims to analyze two main aspects: (1) the representation of the rejection of marriage as a form of resistance to patriarchy in the novel and (2) the author's ideological position. Using a feminist approach with Stuart Hall's representation as its conceptual framework, the analysis reveals that the main character, Joana, refuses to remarry because of her traumatic experience in her previous marriage. Her husband forbids her from working or socializing outside the home. After her divorce, Joana chooses to live independently in the Netherlands, pursuing her career and hobbies while achieving economic independence and personal liberty. Through the character of Joana, Katie Fforde criticizes patriarchal norms still embedded in the institution of marriage. Going Dutch functions as a work of fiction that Ffordes advocates for women's empowerment and their right to live independently
Downloads
References
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1086/383426
Asri, Y. (2018). Women’s rejection toward patriarchy culture: A feminism study in selected Indonesian novels. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Languages and Arts (ICLA 2017). https://doi.org/10.2991/icla-17.2018.35
Bates, L. (2014). Everyday sexism. Simon & Schuster.
Beauvoir, S. (1949). The second sex. Vintage Books.
Brooks, R., Yeadon-Lee, T., & Gill, S. S. (2024). Maintaining the gap: women’s early career experiences of entry into the UK graduate labour market. Journal of Education and Work, 37(1–4), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2024.2321443
Budgeon, S., & Roseneil, S. (2004). Editors’ introduction: Beyond the conventional family. Current Sociology, 52(2), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392104041797
Buss, D. M. (2016). Evolutionary Psychology, The Handbook of. In V. Weekes-Shackelford, T. Shackelford, & V. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (pp. 1–3). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1860-1
de Bellaigue, C., Worth, E., Bennett, C., Eli, K., & Ulijaszek, S. (2022). Women, mobility, and education in twentieth-century England and Wales: A new analytical approach. Twentieth Century British History, 33(3), 345–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/tcbh/hwab037
Etherington, S. S. (2022). Annual report and accounts 2022. National Center for Social Research. https://natcen.ac.uk/s/annual-report-and-accounts-2022
Fforde, K. (2007). Going Dutch. Great Britain.
Gade, P., & Anantha Laksmi, P. (2016). What is she after marriage? International Journal of Multifaceted and Multilingual Studies, 3(5), 1–4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311543763_What_is_she_after_marriage
Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love, and eroticism in modern societies. Stanford University Press.
Gilbert, S. M., & Gubar, S. (1979). The madwoman in the attic: The woman writer and the nineteenth-century literary imagination. Yale University Press.
Gill, R., & Scharff, C. (Eds.). (2011). New femininities: Post-feminism, neoliberalism, and subjectivity. Palgrave Macmillan.
Goode, W. (1993). World changes in divorce patterns. Yale University Press.
Gottman, J. M. (2011). The science of trust: Emotional attunement for couples. W.W. Norton and Company.
Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. SAGE Publications.
Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home. Penguin Group.
Hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for everybody. Pluto Press.
James, L. (2009). Generational differences in women’s attitudes towards paid employment in a British city: The role of habitus. Gender, Place & Culture, 16(3), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/09663690902836342
Koelen, M. A., & Lindström, B. (2005). Making healthy choices easy choices: The role of empowerment. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 59(S1), S10–S16. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602168
McRobbie, A. (2009). The aftermath of feminism: Gender, culture and social change. SAGE Publications.
Millett, K. (1970). Sexual politics. University of Illinois Press.
Moleong, L. J. (2019). Qualitative research methodology. Remaja Rosdakarya.
Rogers, B. (1980). The domestication of women: Discrimination in developing societies. Kogan Page.
Rosaldo, M. Z. (1974). Woman, culture and society. Standford University Press.
Sharfman, A., & Cobb, P. (2024). Divorces in England and Wales: 2022. Office for National Statistics. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2022
Smyth, A. (2024). The feminist killjoy handbook: the radical potential of getting in the way. Gender, Place & Culture, 31(12), 1818–1820. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2024.2325744
Walby, S. (1989). Theorizing patriarchy. Sociology, 23(2), 213–234. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42853921
Woolf, V. (1929). A room of one’s own. Harcourt, Brace & World.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 NOBEL: Journal of Literature and Language Teaching
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
