18th and 19th Century Attitudes Towards Women.

Sam Miranda S5A

2) From the author of both sources we can immediately gather that they both relate to middle-class women. Working class women were on the whole illiterate, as they were offered no education, so therefore would not be purchasing, ‘The Magazine of Domestic Economy’. For Florence Nightingale to be able to write diaries, this demanded a middle-class upbringing. With the ability of hindsight, we know that Florence Nightingale was a very unusual woman, as the, ‘Lady with the Lamp’ tendered to many injured soldiers in the Crimean war. Despite experiencing the nurturing into being the ‘typical woman’, such as attending tea parties and presenting yourself respectably as a lady, she seems bored by this monotonous routine, as suggested when she finishes her entry with the sentence, “And that is all.” This clearly suggests an element of tediousness. Relating to the question, Florence seems dejected regarding her position in society, and we assume she wants to defy this dull routine. Indeed she does in her later life, however she is extraordinary in her choice to pursue that sort of career. Most children at that age were content in their place in society, and as ladies, were pleased to be pampered. This is not because they were lazy and not eager to work, but because they were nurtured in such a way by their parents, and knew nothing else. Florence is unusual in her thought patterns, and with the ability of hindsight, we can safely conclude this. Diaries are personal to the individual, and this account represents only Florence’s view, not the average 12 year old girl being brought up in a middle-class background. If you consider source D, a popular magazine is most likely going to represent the view of the average middle-class lady. It refers to the luxury and wealth of the home being, ‘more deep, heartfelt and personal interest to us than the public affairs of all the nations in the world’. This is completely the opposite in the case of Florence Nightingale, who snubbed the home and turned to public affairs in order to aid soldiers injured in the Crimean war. We have to remember that Florence was unusual in her decision, and that most ladies were content with accompanying friends and enjoying activities such as riding. Indeed, they prided themselves in the welfare of their home, so they could create a good impression on visitors. In conclusion, source D represents a wider view on women’s views of their own position, where source E is more personal to an extraordinary individual.

This is a preview of the whole essay

3) Sources F and G both agree that women should not go out to work, however source F empathises with the welfare of the children, where as G considers the treatment of the husband. Source F, written by F.Engels, a friend of Karl Marx and supporter of the communist manifesto, is concerned about the safety of the a young child if the mother is employed, ‘…can be no real mother to the child, and must inevitably grow indifferent to it, treat it unlovingly like a strange.’ He believes the mother should offer caring and emotional support to the child, and employment would make the two detached. Incidentally, F.Engels is hypocritical, because even though he supports communism which functions round equality, we learn of how only the male should pursue a career. Source G is concentrating on a social difficulty occurring if the female fails to acknowledge her duties. If she refuses to tender to the house, such as, ‘letting the fires go out,’ then the man will go astray and discover ‘gin-shops where all is clean and bright’. Source G implies the women’s job is to make the man as content as possible in his leisure time, and make he house as respectable as possible. In a video we watched, we saw how a working class woman was so defensive and proud of her home. Source G is more specific and chatty in its tone, as the account, from a novel by Elizabeth Gaskell, gives examples of what can go wrong if a woman abuses her duties, ‘I could reckon up nine men I know, who have been driven to the public house by having wives who worked in factories.’ Where as source F refers to employment in general, G refers to factories. The similarity between the sources is that G’s point regarding men and their preferences is assumed in F’s generalisation that a wife’s employment, ‘dissolves the family’. However, F goes onto to sympathise with the welfare of the children, where as G is concerned about the relationship between husband and wife if the house is not maintained.

3) Neither sources F and G are written by working class women themselves, so we cannot assume the statements shared are a true reflection of their attitudes. Source F does not actually mention anything about how a working class woman feels towards her own position, as it simply states the consequences of a woman being employed. Baring in mind Engels is a German man writing about women in England, the source develops a degree of inaccuracy. Because he comes from Germany, it is unlikely he has conducted surveys in person, and visited the Victorian slums. What Engels is doing is commenting on the effect that a working woman would have on the family. The only thing we can deduce is that Engels believes it is damaging for a young child whose mother is away at work, ‘A mother who has no time to trouble herself about her child… who scarcely sees it, can be no real mother to the child…’ He is not giving any information on whether working-class mothers do this, just stating the outcome of a woman ignoring her family duties. So far the source is very inaccurate, and the fact that it is written by a typical man who believes the male should be the breadwinner in the family does nothing to confirm its usefulness. We can only say that if a woman did want employment, she would feel unhappy with her role in society, and want to contribute to the family’s economy. Source G is slightly more helpful, as it is written by a presumably English woman, however she would be a middle class scholar in order to write a novel, not a working class housewife. This again deprives the source of substantial accuracy. However, the source goes on to mention that several men have wives who do indeed work in the factories, ‘I could reckon up nice men I know, who have been driven to the public house by having wives who worked in factories…’ Reading between the lines we can conclude that a small minority of women were unhappy with their role of housekeeping, and were intent on supporting the family financially. But the source does little to develop the attitudes of working class women towards their position, and continues to describe the effects it has on the husband. What both sources do is give valid reasons as to why working class did remain at home, but fail to delve deeper into their emotions regarding the matter. With hindsight we know that working class women were in many cases made to stay at home and tender for the house and family, due to nurturing from parents and lack of places in factory labour. There was the growing few who sought employment, but these sources deal more with the consequences of such events rather than focusing on attitudes towards their own position.