Victorian Gender Roles
In the section on Victorian Ladies and Gentlemen, we are given examples by many writers the ways in which a man and woman should behave. I learned a lot out of these readings, and was surprised at the simple distinction the text makes between who were and were not ladies or gentlemen: "people born into the aristocracy and landed gentry were indisputably ladies and gentlemen; people who worked with their hands...were not." This implies the whole definition of who was best, being those who could afford to engage in leisure activity. In fact, the text tells us that even among the upper classes, there was competition in who could have the most leisure time and do the least amount of work. Even schools emphasized "character over intellect...taught boys how to assimilate manners and customs of those over them socially."
All this work to be without work seems to me like the Victorians got caught up in obsessive cycles of behaviour. being so focused on moving up socially made strict codes of conduct for men and women overly necessary, and people were defined by where they lived, who they visited, or let visit them, what they wore, where they ate, and how they acted over what they were really like. Much of this has carried over into our culture today, but with a more important focus on money, not just the mannerisms of having it.
In Victorian times, there was the carrying on of a huge debate on the place of women. Women had been taught that their virtue was in maintaining the home, reffered to as the domestic sphere. Women's subjugation as house wives and mothers (including their being "unfit" for intellectual and physical pursuits) was justified by some writers, like Sarah Ellis, by telling women that as a gentler and more fair sex they carried the heavy responsibility of maintaining the man's morality. They did this by being "humble monitresses" who by maintaining a clean and orderly home gave the man a place to rest from the wicked and busy world of his business.
Ellis overstates the hardship of men's work adn efforts to maintain a Christian character to increase the importance of women's place in the home. She recommends to ambitious women that they learn the art of conversation if they want more influence, as it keeps men's interest. But she also says that real education--not like the education of Aurora Leigh--is unwomanly and meaningless, in regards to combatting the "growing evils of society", saying that an "increase of intellectual attainments (will not) enable them to assist their brothers, husbands, or their sons in becoming happier and better men." Ellis obviously sticks to her socialization, implying that women who want men's education are frivolous and endangering society by taking away comfort and guidance from a man in need of a "safe haven." She uses a backwards argument to justify women in sticking to the traditionally accepted roles of the time. She says that since women are called on to care for the sick and take care of children, and rarely to translate Latin, what good would education do, since Latin won't help the ill (p559). This argument is shallow, completely disregarding the why of the given situation.
Other women were eager to change the status quo, though this smaller group was written off and ignored for the most part. An interesting exception was Caroline Norton, who strove for women's equality. She wrote the "Letter to the Queen," in which she outlines the lack of rights that women have, like not owning property or having the right to file for divorce or keep their children if the man didn't want the woman to have them. Her protests and her letter helped to get women some rights they didn't have before, like file for custody and divorce, and after her death, own property.
I was also interested to read John Newman's expression of the roles of gentlemen. Those aspiring to this class also had to contend with certain behaviours, which to some degree were contradictory to the typical expectations of "men." In the "Idea of a University: A Definition of a Gentleman," he outlines the social expectations of a gentleman. He had to make everyone around him comfortable, "avoid(ing) whatever may cause a jar or jolt in the minds of with whom he is cast." If he did anything out of the ordinary, or openly argued with another he would lose his position as gentleman through social ostracization. He was expected to be tender and gentle and merciful. He had to avoid topics of conversation that would irritate, so political adn religious debate was probably out of the question. Those aspiring to be gentlemen also struggled with roles typical of men and gentlemen, and had to avoid speaking their minds or acting in a way that was traditionally masculine, at least in regards to standing up for their opinions or physical aggression, a sign of debasement. Having to remain morally "above" other men was also a stressful situation for gentlemen, and they were confined by social expectation nearly as much as women, though obviously women had the short end of the stick.
In the midst of all this social climbing and pretense of refined gentility, lay the heart of Victorian ideals: the civilization of mankind. In order to achieve this civilization, men and women were guided by very strict definitions of behaviour; to try to change those roles or step out of them in any way resulted in loss of that class standing, or at least in being ostracized from their social circles. A person's standing was most important to the Victorians, as we read already, "character over intellect," and behavior over character.
In the section on Victorian Ladies and Gentlemen, we are given examples by many writers the ways in which a man and woman should behave. I learned a lot out of these readings, and was surprised at the simple distinction the text makes between who were and were not ladies or gentlemen: "people born into the aristocracy and landed gentry were indisputably ladies and gentlemen; people who worked with their hands...were not." This implies the whole definition of who was best, being those who could afford to engage in leisure activity. In fact, the text tells us that even among the upper classes, there was competition in who could have the most leisure time and do the least amount of work. Even schools emphasized "character over intellect...taught boys how to assimilate manners and customs of those over them socially."
All this work to be without work seems to me like the Victorians got caught up in obsessive cycles of behaviour. being so focused on moving up socially made strict codes of conduct for men and women overly necessary, and people were defined by where they lived, who they visited, or let visit them, what they wore, where they ate, and how they acted over what they were really like. Much of this has carried over into our culture today, but with a more important focus on money, not just the mannerisms of having it.
In Victorian times, there was the carrying on of a huge debate on the place of women. Women had been taught that their virtue was in maintaining the home, reffered to as the domestic sphere. Women's subjugation as house wives and mothers (including their being "unfit" for intellectual and physical pursuits) was justified by some writers, like Sarah Ellis, by telling women that as a gentler and more fair sex they carried the heavy responsibility of maintaining the man's morality. They did this by being "humble monitresses" who by maintaining a clean and orderly home gave the man a place to rest from the wicked and busy world of his business.
Ellis overstates the hardship of men's work adn efforts to maintain a Christian character to increase the importance of women's place in the home. She recommends to ambitious women that they learn the art of conversation if they want more influence, as it keeps men's interest. But she also says that real education--not like the education of Aurora Leigh--is unwomanly and meaningless, in regards to combatting the "growing evils of society", saying that an "increase of intellectual attainments (will not) enable them to assist their brothers, husbands, or their sons in becoming happier and better men." Ellis obviously sticks to her socialization, implying that women who want men's education are frivolous and endangering society by taking away comfort and guidance from a man in need of a "safe haven." She uses a backwards argument to justify women in sticking to the traditionally accepted roles of the time. She says that since women are called on to care for the sick and take care of children, and rarely to translate Latin, what good would education do, since Latin won't help the ill (p559). This argument is shallow, completely disregarding the why of the given situation.
Other women were eager to change the status quo, though this smaller group was written off and ignored for the most part. An interesting exception was Caroline Norton, who strove for women's equality. She wrote the "Letter to the Queen," in which she outlines the lack of rights that women have, like not owning property or having the right to file for divorce or keep their children if the man didn't want the woman to have them. Her protests and her letter helped to get women some rights they didn't have before, like file for custody and divorce, and after her death, own property.
I was also interested to read John Newman's expression of the roles of gentlemen. Those aspiring to this class also had to contend with certain behaviours, which to some degree were contradictory to the typical expectations of "men." In the "Idea of a University: A Definition of a Gentleman," he outlines the social expectations of a gentleman. He had to make everyone around him comfortable, "avoid(ing) whatever may cause a jar or jolt in the minds of with whom he is cast." If he did anything out of the ordinary, or openly argued with another he would lose his position as gentleman through social ostracization. He was expected to be tender and gentle and merciful. He had to avoid topics of conversation that would irritate, so political adn religious debate was probably out of the question. Those aspiring to be gentlemen also struggled with roles typical of men and gentlemen, and had to avoid speaking their minds or acting in a way that was traditionally masculine, at least in regards to standing up for their opinions or physical aggression, a sign of debasement. Having to remain morally "above" other men was also a stressful situation for gentlemen, and they were confined by social expectation nearly as much as women, though obviously women had the short end of the stick.
In the midst of all this social climbing and pretense of refined gentility, lay the heart of Victorian ideals: the civilization of mankind. In order to achieve this civilization, men and women were guided by very strict definitions of behaviour; to try to change those roles or step out of them in any way resulted in loss of that class standing, or at least in being ostracized from their social circles. A person's standing was most important to the Victorians, as we read already, "character over intellect," and behavior over character.
posted by stevepeano at 12:19 PM
2 Comments:
Ladies and Gantlemen... Well, certainly it sounds pleasant. On the other hand, in Victorian times that was the scarry aristocracy that had a right to call themselves with those titles. It is interesting that the issues of freedom of education of women are coming so often, while the freedom of women in lower classes is kept out of subject. Moreover, Ladies seemesd so egoistic tha they thought only of other Ladies and themselves... I liked your overlook on the topic, and the way you connected the parts of the readings... Good job.
When I read about Victorian Ladies and Gentlemen I was surprised at the competition that was going on inside and outside the classes. I enjoyed reading about it though!!
Post a Comment
<< Home