What is this letter (probably false) saying about gender in the Victorian period? Why would he be "in dread of a wife"? How does this alter our standard conceptions of Victorian gender stereotypes?
Life in Victorian London
Fictions and Forms of Revolution: London 1848
I was really surprised at how anti-marriage this whole article seemed to be. I assumed that at the time especially, marriage was a critical and desirable institution, and yet this article clearly makes it seem as if wives, not just women, are intimidating and unappealing. I also found it interesting that the man was willing to submit and be the weaker sex, when I presumed that men would have wanted to be known as the stronger and more in-control sex. In our time, it does not seem so strange to rebuff marriage or to have a woman who is more powerful in a relationship than the man, but we would not say that she is intimidating. Thus I was baffled by the fact that such a different view than the one I expected to encounter was portrayed in this letter, which changes my expectations for all of the material that we will read this quarter.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Kathryn. It IS strange to think of the Victorians as anti-marriage, especially when so many novels from the period end with marriage. It's particularly intriguing, I think, to wonder why "40 single ladies" is so frightening for this contributor.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in the use of the word "wateringhole", meaning a place for the sexes to mingle. In the case of that particular neighborhood, women are claimed to vastly outnumber the men.
ReplyDeleteI think college parties, modern workplaces, bars, or match.com could be dexcribed as "wateringholes" people are drawn to in order to find a partner. However, the animalistic nature suprised me in the context of Victorian society, which I figured was governed by rigid courting rules.
I too found it interesting that the "single ladies" outnumber the bachelors 40 to 1. It seems to suggest a sense of feminine empowerment, and shows the growing popularity of the independent woman. The article suggests that it was possibly becoming more & more common for women to provide for themselves.
ReplyDeleteSuch a sense of feminism would be threatening to the traditional patriarchy, in which men had their pick of women and were considered inherently superior to their female counterparts. I've always thought that such feminism did not emerge until much later, so it's really interesting that we're seeing such an article emerge out of the Victorian era.
When reading this letter, I was struck by the intensity and vehemence of the language ("urgent," "alarming," "fire-arms," "defensive weapons," "tremblingly," "dread")--particularly, with the inclusion of "watering-place" as a comment on the Victorians' savage/barbaric nature, as Brendan pointed out. From a 21st century standpoint, I think it's common practice to assume that the residents of Victorian England led highly ordered, buttoned-up lives (and specifically, that men acted as chivalric gentlemen and women were unfailingly proper or chaste). It's interesting to note that they are just as capable of droll satire, histrionics, social predation, and so forth.
ReplyDeleteInstead of seeing this as an empowerment of women, (which I think can be accurately said was vastly lacking in Victorian society), I saw this as a more dehumanizing view of women in a comical way.
ReplyDeleteNot only is the location referred to as a watering hole (as mentioned above) likening women to animals, but the fact that the contributor is fearful of women also takes away their stereotypical nurturing human nature. This, in effect, paints women as man-hungry in need to husbands to support them. To use a literary example, Mrs. Bennet in Austen's Pride & Prejudice goes to extreme, often laughable, lengths to secure her five daughters husbands among much competition (such as the forty to one ratio mentioned above).
I think the article could be relaying a comical view of these kinds of women, who are always on the prowl, so to speak, for a husband--sometimes fiercely enough to be feared.
I agree with Rachel. Upon first read, I did feel a sense of feminism, but as I looked at it some more I felt that there was more of a mocking tone. I think that everyone here has interesting points about the mentioning of "the waterhole," and although I do not have new insight to add to that particular part of the discussion, this is something that I would like to explore further in terms of this unexpected role and characterization that is placed on women in the Victorian era.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel as well. I felt the entire piece approached the social dynamics between men and women in a jocose manner, yet completely adhering to Victorian ideals (at least as depicted in the Victorian novel). I agree that the need for a pistol dehumanizes woman by suggesting that they are beasts that should be slain when too aggressive, and while the sheer ratio of women to men suggests that women are empowered, in the end this fact gives men more options in choosing a mate; he becomes the predator again and catches his prey. The only thing a woman can do is make herself more accessible to the male (again this is all from my understanding of the Victorian ideals as depicted in novels and not my own beliefs). It is something we will begin to see in Vanity Fair.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find most problematic about this particular cartoon is the way it so boldly and unapologetically employs an essentialist framework. The very title characterizes women as “the weaker sex” – already using the quaint, gentle, deferential stereotypes of femininity to characterize all members of the female sex. By doing this, the author leaves no room for subtlety and nuance within the female population.
ReplyDeleteI’m also troubled because this cartoon is so reminiscent of the virgin/whore dichotomy so commonly used to describe women. There is simply no place for them between these two extremes. This type of binary only allows for analysis on a superficial level, obscuring the breadth and depth of multiple types of femininities. I am curious to see if this dichotomy is continuously employed throughout the readings in this course.
I feel that the title presents the contrasting views of the female sex as both physically and intelligently (according to beliefs of the time) 'weak' while also socially intimidating. It surprises me, however, that they would juxtapose the stereotypical view of women as meek creatures next to the idea of women as socially aggressive, to the point that men would express fear of being overwhelmed and even jokingly threaten to carry firearms for self-protection.
ReplyDelete