Essay 2

INTRODUCTION

In An Inspector Calls, J. B. Priestley critiques the patriarchal structure of Edwardian society by presenting women as constrained by gendered expectations and denied agency across social classes. Set in 1912 but written in 1945,¹ the play highlights how both working-class and upperclass women² suffer under male dominance, whether through condescension, abuse, or social rejection. Priestley uses his female characters to explore how misogynistic attitudes are upheld not only by men but also by women complicit in their own oppression.³ This essay argues that Priestley presents women as victims of a rigid, patriarchal system in order to expose gender inequality and prompt his audience, particularly the post-war generation, to envision a more equitable society.

1. These opening sentences immediately identify the title, author, context, and link to the question. Integrating both the 1912 setting and the 1945 context is a great way to add sophistication to your essays.

2. Frames the issue around both class and gender.

3. This shows understanding of Priestley’s authorial intent, linking his message about gender equality to the decisions he makes in the text in terms of characterisation and plot.

PARAGRAPH 1

Through the character of Sheila Birling, Priestley critiques the infantilisation and emotional suppression of upper-class women in Edwardian society.⁴ At the start of the play, Sheila’s engagement is celebrated not for love, but for its social utility. Despite being old enough to marry, she is still called a “child” by her mother, suggesting that she is viewed as immature and incapable of independent thought.⁵ This infantilising metaphor reinforces the notion that women were denied full participation in adult life. Gerald’s attempt to shield Sheila from the truth further reveals these patronising attitudes, prompting the Inspector’s rhetorical challenge: “And you think young women ought to be protected against unpleasant and disturbing things?” Priestley’s repetition of Gerald’s sentiment emphasises the absurdity of shielding women from reality, highlighting the restrictive control exercised over them. Sheila’s evolving emotional maturity and growing moral awareness throughout the play position her as a character who learns from her mistakes, yet her attempts to engage seriously are met with dismissal. When Sheila expresses concern, her mother labels her “hysterical,” a term loaded with historical connotations of female irrationality.⁶ By invoking this term, Priestley draws attention to the medicalised and gendered dismissal of women’s emotions. Through Sheila, Priestley critiques the generational transmission of sexist norms and the social structures that silence women’s voices and curtail their autonomy.⁷

4. Opens with a clear topic sentence tied to essay question.

5. Even one-word quotes can lead to valuable analysis. It’s always better to be precise and include shorter quotes than to insert long lines of dialogue straight from the play (as the marker won’t know that you understand which language is actually important in constructing meaning!).

6. Analyses “hysterical” as a gendered label, connecting the language to the social attitudes embedded within it, and balancing relevant contextual information with a focus on textual analysis.

7. Ends with a sentence linking Priestley’s construction of this theme to his broader generational critique.

PARAGRAPH 2

Priestley also uses Mrs Birling to expose how women can become enforcers of the very patriarchal standards that oppress them. Described in the opening stage directions as a “rather cold woman,” Mrs Birling embodies emotional detachment and moral superiority, traits associated with the Victorian ideal of female decorum. Her dismissal of Sheila’s concerns and her own past acceptance of marital neglect evident in lines like “you’ll have to get used to that, just as I did” reflects her resignation to a system in which women are expected to tolerate emotional abandonment.⁸ Priestley uses Mrs Birling’s role in the charity to illustrate her internalised class and gender prejudice. She labels Eva Smith’s appeal for help as “gross impertinence,” suggesting that she saw Eva’s assertiveness as inappropriate for a woman of her class.⁹ Mrs Birling’s exclamation of “as if a girl of that sort would ever refuse money!” reveals her deep-seated contempt for working-class women, equating poverty with moral corruption. The forceful punctuation amplifies her scorn. Through this character, Priestley critiques the social divisions that pit women against one another and shows how even those who might advocate for other women can uphold systems of exclusion and judgement. Mrs Birling represents a generation resistant to change, reinforcing Priestley’s argument that social reform must come from those willing to challenge inherited prejudices.

8. This is a clear point of contrast between Mrs Birling and Sheila – where one seems to be ready to forever tolerate her husband’s dominance, the latter is willing to walk away from an engagement when she is dissatisfied with his behaviour. You can use contrasts like this between characters to sharpen your argument. Focus on how dialogue and diction expose deeper social flaws.

9. This analysis of class bias demonstrates how Mrs Birling upholds patriarchal social norms, thereby emphasising the way gendered conflict impacts women.

PARAGRAPH 3

Eva Smith serves as the clearest representation of the powerlessness experienced by women under intersecting systems of class and gender. Her absence from the stage is a deliberate structural decision, symbolising the erasure of working-class women’s voices from public and private discourse.¹⁰ Each character’s interaction with her contributes to her downfall, but perhaps most telling is Eric’s admission: “I was in that state when a chap easily turns nasty.” This vague and euphemistic phrasing masks the implication of coercion or even sexual violence, reflecting the casual misogyny embedded in male privilege.¹¹ The Inspector’s condemnation of Eric, highlighting how he treated Eva “as if she were an animal,” dehumanises Eric’s actions while calling attention to the broader societal objectification of women. The animal metaphor¹² underscores Eva’s reduction to a mere vessel for male desire, deprived of agency or dignity. Priestley uses Eva’s narrative to indict the systemic exploitation of vulnerable women and to provoke guilt and reflection in both the characters and the audience. Her story, though silent, becomes the moral centre of the play, illustrating how patriarchal and capitalist forces combine to strip women of identity and humanity.

10. Establishes Eva’s absence as symbolic, and frames her as the play’s moral centre. Remember that you can use absences and silences in the play as part of your argument.

11. Quotes Eric’s line to explore euphemistic violence. Note that we don’t just let the quote speak for itself – we’re using specific vocabulary to explain its meaning and effect.

12. Interprets “animal” metaphor as dehumanising, integrating commentary on the intersection of class and gender to add more depth while still staying within the confines of the essay question.

CONCLUSION

Through his portrayal of Sheila, Mrs Birling, and Eva Smith, Priestley crafts a powerful critique of Edwardian gender inequality, emphasising that patriarchal oppression affects women across class lines. Whether infantilised, dismissed, or silenced, the female characters in An Inspector Calls reveal the damaging effects of societal norms that restrict women’s autonomy and moral authority. Priestley warns that unless these attitudes are recognised and reformed, history will continue to repeat itself. By encouraging post-war audiences to reflect on their own values, he champions a future where gender equality and social justice are central to collective responsibility.