How should we fight evil? The question is eternal, and will have bearing on life in all ages. Jeanette Winterson's Sexing the Cherry is a good example of this because it spans different time periods - it is set in 17th century London, the present day, and some periods in between - and because it addresses many perceived social injustices and makes statements about them. It's the story of a traveling mother, Dog-Woman, and her son, Jordan, who break boundaries, blur lines, and question conventionally accepted ideals. One such topic that is questioned is the idea of ​​patriarchy and Winterson uses the retelling of a fairy tale, in which women actively take ownership of their own destiny, to make a statement about the oppression and inadequacies of the patriarchal system. The retelling of the tale of the Twelve Dancing Princesses, however, is unsuccessful in its fight against patriarchy because it portrays women as violent, exaggerated, and maniacal creatures who dole out punishment inadequate to the crime. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay A case-by-case analysis shows that most of the twelve dancing princesses fight evil with evil. Some of them find it a fairly harmless method of escape, but many end up killing their husbands. The first princess falls in love with a mermaid and runs away to begin "making house with her in perfect salty bliss," but the second princess tells Jordan that she "had wrapped her husband in cloth and continued to wrap the stale bandages in round until it reached his nose” (43-44). Although some princesses' method is harmless, those princesses are a minority. Instead, most of them, like the second princess, kill their husbands quite violently but creatively. They face evil – oppressive and often violent husbands – and they meet that evil with even more evil – murderous behavior. This suggests that the only way women can be active against injustice or be autonomous is to behave evilly. Winterson wants the reader to think about the fight against oppression of women, but the only example he gives of the fight against oppression is murder. This sends the message that not only is murder acceptable, but also that it is the only or perhaps the best way to fight against an oppressive husband. If Winterson suggests that the way to fight evil is with more evil, he does not present a winning argument for fighting oppression because evil cannot drive out evil, it can only add to it. Some princesses resort to violent punishments that are unjustified in terms of their husbands' crimes. Many husbands are not innocent, that's for sure. But for some of these cases justification is certainly lacking. One of the princesses poisons her husband to death and doesn't even attempt to justify why she does so; in fact, the most negative thing people say about him is that “he's very, very fat. He is the fattest man in the village. He's always been fat. He has eleven brothers, all thin as spring corn. Every day he eats a cow followed by a pig” (49). Certainly, this man demonstrates gluttonous behavior on an extreme level, but does this guarantee death? Is overeating so bad that you should be poisoned to death for it? The way this princess describes his death ("As soon as he finished [the poisonous mixture she had prepared for him] he began to sell it. It swelled out of the house, splitting the roof, and in a few moments it had exploded" [50]) seems cruel and unusual if the crime consists of enjoying food too much his death couldbe justified if this man were portrayed as a person who takes excessively and does not consider that some things should not be taken, but Winterson does not do that. Instead, she simply describes him as a greedy man and, in effect, makes the woman look ridiculous for poisoning someone to death simply because he likes food. This example presents the woman as cruel, unjust and irrational; does not present convincing evidence that women should fight against the patriarchal system that binds them. Instead, it suggests that women are ridiculous and are incapable of reacting in a relevant way when faced with difficulties. The princesses' behaviors place them on the same level as their oppressive husbands. It does not deserve approval; instead, he portrays them as just as bad as their dictatorial husbands. When the fifth princess's husband blinds her, no reaction is necessary to feel sympathy for the princess. His actions are so horrific that no response is necessary for the reader to recognize and be outraged by his chillingly evil conduct. But the princess responds, and responds in a way that suggests she is seeking personal revenge: As for me, my body is healed, though my eyes have never healed, and at last I was found by my sisters, who they had come to visit me in various ways. I live on this estate. My husband? Oh well, the first time I kissed him he turned into a frog. There it is, right next to your foot. His name is Anton. (47)This quote is cold, sinister. This suggests that the princess has become just as evil as her husband was. It continues the theme that princesses should fight their evil circumstances with evil tactics. In fact, it is the second princess who says she "had a moment of regret, and continued" as if she knew that what she was doing was not right, it was not justified, but she does not stop (44). The princesses are fighting against evil, but they have become evil too, so why should we sympathize with them? Why should we support their behavior? Isn't that just as bad as the behavior they object to? Ultimately, neither side is worthy of admiration because both the princesses and their husbands are in the same moral condition. This is demonstrated most clearly by the tale of the ninth princess who was bed-bound and shackled when riding her horse and who had to hang on her husband's arm and feed from his hand (50). One night in June, she "flew off his wrist and tore his liver from his body, bit [his] chain to pieces, and left him on the bed with his eyes open" (51). It's hard to choose which person behaves more despicably. I suppose you could argue that her husband deserves more blame than her because he instigated horrible behavior for no reason while she was simply reacting to her circumstances. But when it comes to an act so evil, so immoral, so unspeakable, does the motive matter? It certainly makes the crime more understandable, but not more justifiable. But I would argue that this princess's behavior is just as bad as her husband's and as such is not commendable, it is not justifiable, it should not be hailed as a courageous fight against oppression and patriarchy. If their behaviors are at the same place on a spectrum of morality and her husband's behavior is not acceptable, his behavior is definitely not acceptable either. To admire the conduct of this princess would be gravely inconsistent because it would mean admiring in the princess what she despises in her husband. The validity of Winterson's idea - that women must fight the evil of oppression from,.