2009/01/25
women
While England was possibly the most liberal nation in Europe during the mid 19th century, the government's refusal to extend voting rights to women is troubling. I greatly admire that England was able to double "the franchise by extending the vote to any men who paid poor rates or rent of £10 or more a year in urban areas and to rural tenants paying rent of £12 or more"(757) with the 1867 Reform Bill. This was certainly progressive and very liberal, compared to how the situation was before in England and still was on Continental Europe. However, the issue of woman's suffrage was not addressed in the Bill. When the issue was brought up in the decade after the 1867 Reform Bill was passed, which is considered "the high point of British liberalism"(757), even liberal leaders showed opposition to woman's suffrage claiming that "female individuality would destabilize family life"(758). Despite the fact that women have played a critical role in getting rid of many evils throughout history, like they did with their efforts in the reform campaigns of the Anti-Corn Law League and abolition of slavery in England, they were once again cast aside, even by men who considered themselves liberal. The only rational I can distinguish behind the motives of these men is that they, like the wealthy land owners, were insecure of having some of their power taken away by people they considered to be capable of taking it away, even though women had proved that they would fight for and represent the common good if given more power.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Though wealthy land owners might have been insecure about having their power taken away, I do not think that this is the main reason that voting rights were not extended to women during the mid 19th century. In examining why 19th century liberal reform in Britain did not involve a large women’s suffrage movement, it is integral to note that the time period under consideration directly coincides with the Victorian era. During this time, women were expected to occupy a separate sphere than men, a sphere in which they were supposed to live subordinate to their spouses. In England and indeed throughout Europe, paternal authority was codified in law and women were seen as legally incompetent. Instead of asserting themselves in the public sphere, women were responsible for the moral education of their children and for maintaining a dignified and ordered home. 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. English society in the 19th century in many ways revolved around these clearly defined gender roles in which females remained subordinate to the male and confined mainly to the private sphere; as a result, granting women the right to vote would have completely upset the entire basis of English and European society and was thus an idea rejected by the majority of men and women. It would take a complete shift in Victorian gender roles and reassessment of female domesticity brought about by the more diverse, populous, and thus relevant group of working women in the late 19th century to make women’s enfranchisement a reality. However, given the state of society in the 19th century, it is not at all surprising that the idea of extending suffrage to women was not popular even amongst the most liberal reformers in English society.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the women who didn't embrace the role of the typical Victorian woman, like the suffragettes and authors like Mary Shelley? There was quite a following there, which I think shows that women were not so willing to embrace these roles as just wives and mothers any longer. What evidence is there that "most" women rejected rejected the idea of universal suffrage? Also,European society was witnessing some major changes to its systems what with the whole idea of liberalism socialism. Why is that conservatism, which was arguably just as fundamental in European society as paternalism what with the Bourbon monarchies and Hapsburgs, was challenged and reformed while the whole idea of a paternalistic society remained?
ReplyDeleteliberalism and socialism*
ReplyDeleteThe fact that certain women did not embrace the Victorian model for women does not negate the fact that the model dominated European society in the 19th century. When you mention that Mary Shelley “had quite a following,” I do not believe that to be at all a reflection of a hidden desire for change in 19th century Europe. To the contrary, Shelley’s popularity stemmed from her role as a skilled Romantic novelist who explored the ideas of individuality, emotion and reason that were extremely popular during her time. She was in no way broadly celebrated for her feminist views, which remained less prominent and less radical than those of her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft. I am also unsure to whom you refer when you mention the “suffragettes;” I do not believe that there was any relevant group of women advocating for women’s suffrage during the 19th century (save perhaps for the last decade). 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. The supremacy of this role as opposed to one involving political rights can be seen both in the lack of a suffrage movement as well through the unpopularity of the work of John Stuart Mills, whose work advocating for suffrage was deemed incredibly scandalous by the public. Lastly, I believe that the strength of paternalism in the face of various changes in 19th century European society stems from the source of these changes, namely the Industrial Revolution. While the Industrial Revolution had wide-ranging effects on European society – be it by unifying nations through advances in communication or sparking movements such as socialism – it left Victorian gender roles unchanged. This peculiarity stemmed from the fact that the Revolution, while forcing all members of the lower classes to work, did not drive women in the upper and middle classes to labor in factories. As a result, women in these classes could continue to carry out their traditional duties in the house and in effect remain subordinate to their working husbands, thus providing a model for the rest of society. Furthermore, in the face of mounting changes on all sides, Europeans sought some form of stability, which they found in maintaining the family and existing gender roles. As a result, paternalism remained a strong and secure component of European society throughout the 19th century.
ReplyDelete