Nicole Annette 🇨🇦 :
As a historian, I’m not sure I fully agree with this take. While Outlander is fiction, using a presentist lens on people of the past (even in fiction, which are still based on people of that time period) can skew our understanding. This isn’t to say coercion did not exist in the past; it certainly did, but I don’t know if painting Jamie as some sort of possible villain (whether intentional or not) is useful. To be frank, had he not been willing and understanding and believing of Claire, she would have been executed for witchcraft. Sometimes we have to understand people in the past in the context of their time. She was navigating a world as a woman of the 1940s who had just come out of a wartime period that already pushed gender roles, giving her more confidence and assertiveness. Jamie is navigating a world 200 years in the past previous to that, one in which has rigid gender roles, a long and tumultuous relationship between the English and the Scots, and one where many were not well-educated in terms of formal education, which meant many did not have the same abilities as many of us are privileged to have now. While I do understand the idea that the marriage was coercive, again, we have to understand how people navigated those time periods. Yes, women were considered property, but this take of “women had no control/they were property/everything was coercive” can sometimes take away women’s agency. Yes, they faced immense oppression, but again, as a historian, I work from a postmodern feminist and relational lens that invites the reasoning that two things can be true at once. While women’s agency may certainly be constrained within patriarchy, the idea that there may never be any “true” choice, does inadvertently take away any agency women have, especially women of the past.
2026-06-07 12:12:16