Piggybacking on a series of posts (1, 2, and 3).
Specifically: "Despite the seemingly monotony of such a life, women embraced their role, believing that being a good wife and mother was an honorable task whose successful completion was the mark of an elevated character." (here)
And: "Women during the 19th century remained very content with their Victorian roles, seeing themselves as the “angel in the house” securing – through the proper education of their children – the morality of future generations." (here)
I think it would be difficult to generalize and say that women "embraced" their role. I think that yes, they remained subservient, perhaps not out of pure unadulterated joy, but rather because that was expected. Previous discussion of the woman's role in society had always been conducted by men (think about the Reformation/Counter Reformation). The instances in which woman had stood up for themselves had been in a strictly religious realm (e.g. convents) which differed from the political arena.
During the 19th century I do not believe that women "remained very content with their Victorian roles"; I think that they simply were yet to become aware that they could change their situations. With the rise of machines during the second Industrial Revolution, the demands for new workers (in factories and healthcare etc.), women were called out of their homes. Their families needed food (though this had previously also been the case during the first IR) and employers were hiring women. Work was the spark to light the fuse of the suffragette movement. It acted as the "buy in" (think about poker) in the game of mass politics. Women worked. Men worked. (Most) men could vote. Why not women too?
February 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment