While not from 1847 (it's from 3 years later, in January 1850), this cartoon from Punch broaches similar questions to those raised in "The Weaker Sex." Has the debate changed over the course of 3 years? What are the various sides of the debate? Is it, as people have suggested, either feminist or sexist or both? What stereotypes is it using? Does it point to a legitimate social problem?
One difference I note between "The Weaker Sex" and "Our Female Supernumeraries" is the severity with which they treat the issue. While "The Weaker Sex" suggested the bearing of firearms to protect against the abundance of women, the suggestion is obviously a joke. The response and the facts are an exaggeration suggesting that this is not a real problem. "Our Female Supernumeraries," on the other hand, approaches the problem from multiple points of view, suggesting that the problem requires discussion. The solutions of this piece are not so farfetched, which suggest a serious approach to the growing number of women. When I read "The Weaker Sex" I did not believe that overpopulation of women was a real problem; however, I believe that by the time we get to Supernumeraries, it is a legitimate concern. The argument that most resonated with me was that of the loss of masculinity of the country. The reason I argue this is a true concern is that Vanity Fair addresses this concern in Mr. Sedley’s notion that Joseph is “vain selfish lazy and effeminate” (Thackeray 52). The narrator also suggest that men “are quite as eager for praise, quite as finikin over their toilettes, quite as proud of their personal advantages, quite as conscious of their power of fascination as any coquette in the world” (22). I am unsure whether the novel sees this as a problem or not, but the appearance of the them suggest that it was on the public mind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Edgar in that “Our Female Supernumeraries” legitimizes what appeared to be satire in “The Weaker Sex”—that is, the suggestion that an overabundance of woman could destabilize England’s gender politics. The earlier piece, by virtue of humor, was nearly feministic in its appraisal of feminine wiles, social clout, etc. “Our Female Supernumeraries,” on the other hand, presents a misogynistic argument, one that is informed by the obvious commodification of women and divorced of any flattering/aggrandizing portrayal. They are likened to "bag and baggage," referred to as “shipments” and “goods” for which a “purchaser” cannot be found, degraded as a statistical impediment to a "free and glorious constitution," and presented as a burden that England needs to get “off her hands.” It’s interesting that the article, like “The Weaker Sex,” conflates womanhood with animalistic imagery, but this piece uses the comparison as a means of further belittling, in lieu of empowering, females—particularly, with the mention of a “Sportman’s game-list” and of starving maids.
ReplyDeleteThe author’s own view, which appears moderate in light of earlier caricatures, is somewhat sympathetic to the female cause; and yet, it endorses this male-centric discourse, arguing for the emigration of women, comparable to that of the “Swedish hen-chaffinches.” It is telling that the author believes a woman’s core aspirations are the attainment of “stalwart mates and solid meals.” It speaks to the unilateral focus and one-dimensionality of the female Victorian experience--as illustrated by Becky Sharp’s designs on Joseph Sedley and as evidenced by "Miss Griffin's Establishment for Young Ladies," which equates marriage with an “exalted” state.
I agree with Edgar. "The Weaker Sex" obviously makes a joke over the rising number of women, as the contributor pretends that he is actually scared of a growing number of women to the extent he needs a pistol.
ReplyDeleteThis submission, however, starts proposing that the growing number of women is actually a societal problem that needs to be considered from many perspectives. I find this especially alarming because not only does this article present its point of view, but it actually relays a persuasive argument that women are extremely below men "being at the bottom of all mischief" and that the country is "being eaten up by women...becoming the worse nine-tenths."
However, in a contrasting way, I found it interesting that this article almost points to the fact that the way society is run (in the fact that land and assets are passed down solely to men) needs to be changed, as with a growing number of women, power in society will be passed down to a fewer and fewer amount of people. I think in this way it inadvertently criticizes the way society at that time was run.
I too was struck by the seriousness by which the author treats the issue of the overpopulation of English by women. It starkly contrasts the satirical treatment of this issue in "The Weaker Sex". The author sees the surplus of women as a serious social problem in need of government intervention. His solution seems comical - to provide these excess women with the resources to migrate to Australia - yet he seems to be serious.
ReplyDeleteWhat is most interesting to me is that gender politics typically seem to be fueled by the misogynist fear of independent women - that is, their male-status is threatened by such women. Yet female independence seems to be the most obvious, logical, and feasible solution to the problem mentioned in the article. These women are failing to find husbands because they outnumber the men of England and cannot sustain themselves as men can. The author overlooks the potential that educating these women to support themselves has in solving this problems and instead suggests the government spend even more money shipping them abroad.