In J.B. Priestley’s An Inspector Calls, men are portrayed as powerful, privileged, and often morally flawed; a reflection of the strict gender and class hierarchies of Edwardian society. This full-mark GCSE English Literature essay examines how Priestley Presents Men in An Inspector Calls, including Mr Birling, Gerald Croft, Eric Birling, and Inspector Goole, to expose hypocrisy, arrogance, and a lack of social responsibility among men in 1912.
It’s important to note that students do not need to write this many paragraphs in their GCSE exams. This essay is designed as an extended model response to show how to analyse language, structure, and context effectively while covering all the key male characters. Use it as a revision guide – focus on how quotes are explored, how context is linked, and how Priestley’s intentions are explained, then adapt these skills into your own concise exam answers.
How Priestley presents what life was like for the men in An Inspector Calls?
In An Inspector Calls, J.B. Priestley presents a powerful critique of male privilege, hypocrisy, and power in Edwardian society. The men in the play — Mr Birling, Gerald Croft, and Eric Birling — embody different aspects of patriarchy and capitalism, revealing how social status and gender protected men from moral accountability. Through these male characters, Priestley exposes the double standards and lack of responsibility that defined the lives of privileged men in 1912, while also offering hope for change through the younger generation.
Priestley presents Arthur Birling as the archetype of male capitalist dominance and the voice of outdated patriarchal values. His self-important speech early in Act 1 , “A man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own”, encapsulates his selfish worldview. The repeated use of the noun “man” reinforces the gendered assumption that success and responsibility belong exclusively to men, while women are passive dependents. The language of possession in “his own” reflects both capitalist greed and patriarchal control. He sees his family and business as extensions of his property.
Through Birling’s confident yet ignorant tone, Priestley satirises the arrogance of powerful men who believe their authority is unchallengeable. Birling’s obsession with his potential knighthood and his business interests reflects how upper-class men in 1912 valued social status over morality. Dramatic irony, such as his claims that “there isn’t a chance of war”, exposes him as foolish, undermining the myth of male superiority and rationality. Priestley uses Birling to show that pre-war men in power were more interested in preserving wealth and status than in social progress or equality.
Gerald represents the charming but morally corrupt upper-class man, respectable in public, exploitative in private. His treatment of Eva (or Daisy Renton) reveals how men used their privilege to control and manipulate vulnerable women. Gerald justifies his actions by claiming, “I didn’t feel about her as she felt about me,” exposing the emotional imbalance and power dynamics between them. The pronoun “I” foregrounds his self-interest, while the detached tone shows how easily he distances himself from moral responsibility.
He also insists that he “rescued” Daisy from “a notorious bar”, but Priestley uses irony here; Gerald’s supposed act of kindness is, in reality, an extension of male control. The verb “rescued” carries heroic connotations, yet it disguises his exploitation of a working-class woman who relied on him for survival. Priestley deliberately makes Gerald’s actions complex; his charm and partial remorse highlight how deeply ingrained patriarchal entitlement was. Mrs Birling’s dismissal of the affair as “disgusting”, without condemning Gerald, further reinforces how society protected men from judgment while women bore the blame. Through Gerald, Priestley exposes the double standards that allowed men to sin freely while women were punished for the same behaviour.
Eric Birling represents the darker side of male privilege and youthful recklessness. While Sheila grows into a figure of moral awareness, Eric reveals how even younger men are corrupted by power and alcohol. His admission , “I was in that state when a chap easily turns nasty” , is deeply disturbing. The euphemistic noun “chap” and the phrase “turns nasty” trivialise his assault on Eva, showing how normalised and unspoken male violence against women was. Priestley uses Eric’s language to reflect a society that excuses male misconduct as weakness rather than holding men accountable.
However, unlike his father, Eric does experience guilt and self-awareness. His desperate cry, “The fact remains that I did what I did,” is a moment of moral clarity. The repetition of “I did” shows ownership and acceptance of blame , something Mr Birling refuses to do. Through Eric, Priestley suggests that there is hope for change if men confront their actions and reject the toxic values inherited from their fathers. Eric’s realisation mirrors Priestley’s post-war belief that the younger generation must break the cycle of exploitation, both economically and socially.
In contrast to the selfishness and arrogance of men like Birling and Gerald, Priestley presents Inspector Goole as the embodiment of moral authority and social conscience; a man who challenges the corrupt values of patriarchal and capitalist society. Unlike the other male characters, the Inspector’s power comes not from wealth or status, but from truth and morality. When he asserts, “We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other,” Priestley uses collective pronouns such as “we” and “each other” to reject individualism and masculine dominance, promoting instead unity, empathy, and shared responsibility. This directly opposes Mr Birling’s earlier assertion that “a man has to look after himself,” positioning the Inspector as Priestley’s moral mouthpiece.
The Inspector’s calm, controlled tone contrasts with the defensive arrogance of the other men, symbolising an alternative model of masculinity: one built on compassion and justice rather than power and control. The metaphor of “one body” draws upon Christian and socialist imagery, suggesting that society functions best when people care for one another, not when men compete for authority. Priestley, a committed socialist writing in 1945, wanted his audience to recognise that the old systems of male hierarchy and capitalist greed had led to war and suffering. The Inspector’s final warning , “If men will not learn that lesson, they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish” , uses biblical imagery and the tricolon “fire, blood, and anguish” to evoke the destruction of two world wars. The word “men” here carries a double meaning: humanity as a whole, but also literally men, whose leadership and pride had brought about global conflict.
Collectively, Priestley uses the male characters to criticise toxic masculinity and capitalist hierarchy. The men dominate the conversation, interrupt others, and view emotion as weakness, traits Priestley associates with moral blindness. Their actions contribute directly to Eva Smith’s death, yet most attempt to deflect blame. Mr Birling’s use of the phrase “wretched girl” dehumanises her, while Gerald and Eric’s behaviour reduces her to a sexual object. Priestley exposes how class and gender privilege allowed men to exploit women without consequence: a reflection of Edwardian patriarchy, where working-class women had little protection or voice.
Leave a comment. We would love to hear your thoughts!