As discussed in my blog about Aurora Leigh by Elizabeth Browning, a woman's role in society was a very hot topic in the mid 1800’s. Due to the economic prosperity of the Victorian era, many middle class men and women found themselves able to enter the ranks of the upper class. However, certain social distinctions like manners, birth, occupation, and leisure time were indicators of which social rank one belonged to. Ladies and gentlemen aspired to “conform” to their respective spheres of society. For women, this was a domestic sphere including responsibility over one’s family and home where as for men, this meant a very public sphere. As Tennyson stated in The Princess, “Man for the field and woman for the hearth:
Man for the sword and for the needle she:
Man with the head and woman with the heart:
Man to command and woman to obey:
All else confusion” (p. 555).
The woman’s job at this time was to take care of the household, in free time she would be expected to excel in sewing, music, or art, she should be a comforter and moral compass for her husband at home, and always be submissive.
The Victorian era was a time of change in England and with that came ideas contrary to the norm, ideas like women having rights of their own and the will to do what pleases them. I will use this blog to look at two women authors with two very different points of views; the first, Sarah Stickney Ellis, who was content with the traditional view of the domesticated woman and then Caroline Norton, who helped to publicize the injustice of womanhood. I would like to point out that there were women during this period who sided with Ellis in that they liked the role they played and had no interest pursuing more and there were many women like Norton who felt women were capable of much more and deserved to have their own rights.
Sarah Stickney Ellis wrote many guides for females including The Women of England: Their Social Duties and Domestic Habits, which advised women to simply accept their inferiority to men and embrace their duty to support the men in their lives. Although Ellis discourages women from having intellectual ambitions, she does give women credit for having a greater moral ability than men. “…Be of essential service in aiding the judgments of their husbands, brothers, or sons in those intricate affairs in which it is sometimes difficult to dissever worldly wisdom from religious duty” (p. 557). Ellis states that men have so many things to think about that being moral and Christ-like in their decisions may be the last thing on their mind, but it is something that women can aspire to help them with. Ellis later states that when men are tempted by the world around them, “he has thought of the humble monitress… and the remembrance of her character, clothed in moral beauty, has scattered the clouds before his mental vision, and sent him back to that beloved home, a wiser and better man” (p. 557). Although this description makes the woman seem needed and useful, I think it is a bit naive on Ellis’ part. I’m not sure most men at that time truly did think back to their wives at home to give them guidance on moral righteousness. Another point that Ellis makes is the type of education that is most effective in making a woman-- one that produces qualities and character traits that are most admired and beloved like “disinterested kindness” and “moral greatness”.
Caroline Norton wrote A Letter to the Queen in 1855 with a slightly different opinion on the role of women in society. Norton blatantly states, “A married woman in England has no legal existence: her being is absorbed in that of her husband” (p. 565). Basically, during the 19th century, it was not only custom, but actual law for a woman’s person and property to belong to her husband. “She has no possessions… cannot make a will…cannot legally claim her own earnings… not leave her husband’s house… take proceedings for a divorce… allowed to defend herself” (p. 566). As a child, a young girl’s parents have control over her and then once she is married her rights are simply transferred from her parents to her husband. Women in Europe never had rights or control of their own being. One point that Norton makes that I find interesting and possibly in rebuttal to Ellis, “Her being, on the other hand, of spotless character, and without reproach, gives her no advantage in law” (p. 566). I think this is a very good point for if women are to be held to such a high moral standards, then they should certainly be trusted to make their own decisions and do not need to be controlled by the men in their lives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Alex,
ReplyDeleteOutstanding comparison of the two competing depictions of women's roles in Victorian society. Ellis and Norton seem almost to be writing about two different worlds, in their contradictory evaluations of status quo. You do a nice job of presenting specific passages to support and illustrate your observations, and of clearly framing the quotations for your reader. Your concluding opinion seems astute as well.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I also wrote on Ellis's depiction of women's roles in the Victorian Era. In response to your comment on my blog, I felt as if Ellis was uplifting a woman's moral strength and highlighting the importance of their domestic duties only to distract the women from their obvious and unjust inferiority. She writes to make the Victorian women understand that they are only complementary to their Victorian men, though they are not equal or independent. I felt, as expressed in my blog, that education for these women could possibly tear down the strict boundaries placed upon them, thus equalizing both genders, an idea well presented by Mill. I enjoyed your blog, though. You were a bit more positive about Ellis's ideas than I was and I appreciated your comparison between Ellis and Norton. Although, I disagreed with Ellis's point of view, you can be assured that I certainly appreciated her view point, as it allowed me to implore my own conclusions concerning this matter.
Thanks!
-Alex
I also wrote about this topic and I definitely agree with a lot that you have to say. I also think that Ellis was concerned with women knowing their place in relation to a man's place during the Victorian Era. A woman's place was in the home, while the man was the more sociable and public person in the marriage. I appreciate your comment about Ellis possibly trying to make light of the situation that women were in at the time, helping them to be more satisfied with the way their lives were, content with being their husband's help-mate. Really good post.
ReplyDeleteI love your topic and the direction you went with this post. Your observation are good in all of the posts I have read from your blogs...well done!
ReplyDelete