Larkin Is Misogynist

Larkin is a misogynist who hates marriage and children. Discuss how far you agree. I agree with this statement to some extend but not fully. I think Larkin can come across in these ways however to put a definite label on him would be an assumption. Also I think that by saying he hates children and marriage is too much of a strong statement and perhaps he personally never chose to do these particular things in life or couldn’t understand them. Larkin comes across as a misogynist from the way he presents women as just objects for the purpose of men. For example in the poem ‘For Sidney Bechet’ he writes “sporting-house girls like circus tigers (priced far above rubies)” which is perhaps referring to wild prostitute women who have been tamed, from the way he uses animal imagery with the simile of a circus tiger. The very fact he has made this link with animals could be interpreted as derogatory towards women and in many ways an insult. Furthermore the way in which these men are “grouping round their chairs” gives the impression these men are sitting and perversely watching and choosing these women for their sexual pleasure which undermines women and objectifies them. Larkin may also be seen as objectifying women in another poem “Wild Oats” where he writes “in my wallet are still two snaps of bosomy rose with fur gloves on.” The way he uses “bosomy” as an adjective referring to the aesthetic qualities of her breasts instead of any genuine compliment on her personality so this comment could be seen as disrespectful. In addition he writes “with fur gloves on” which gives a sexual illusion of this woman, as fur gloves and large breasts are a provocative combination and the fact he has this picture in his wallet seams rather perverse. The fact that the title of the poem itself can be used as a euphemism for sex highlights the idea that perhaps he only sees women as a means for sex. On the other hand, others would argue that the very fact he shows this type of