Ruskin in Source 1 agrees to the prescribed roles mentioned in Source 5, through the contents and tone of the source. He describes men’s duties as active, whereas women’s is passive. Using language, Ruskin portrays men like an omnipotent figure.
‘He is eminently the doer, the creator, the discoverer, the defender’
He states that men are robust, and portrays women as naïve and fragile, where her onus is only upon ‘sweet ordering, arrangement and decision’, i.e. her household ‘duties’. However, Ruskin does not agree with the dominance of male, rather he implies that both sexes have important differential roles, and without each other they are unrefined- ‘Home is yet wherever she is’. On a whole this source is ambiguous.
Similarly Sources 4a, 4b and 4c are of ambiguous nature. Source 4a is partially supports the argument. Both women are taking part in a menial role compared to the male doctor. Nightingale (an upper class woman) seems to be supervising the maiden, which show traits of a lady. She is working voluntarily for a benevolent cause of helping wounded soldiers; thus her womanhood is not threatened. However it was still abnormal for a woman to work, and it’s probably for this reason the soldier in the background is staring at both women. On a positive aspect the fact that women are working could be seen as signs for optimism. Similarly in source 4b a male is supervising the women workers. Assuming they are of working class origin the statement does not relate to them as they have the right to work for means of survival.
Source 4c clearly shows women participating in physical labour, which is not the norm. However it is an exception taking into account that it was probably taken during the time of conscription in WW1.Furthermore the picture was taken many decades after the early Victorian era. The hypothesis does not relate to these picture sources as May wasn’t referring to upper or working class women.
It is evident that source 2 is in favour with the hypothesis in source 5. Grey states that women are indirectly suffering due to the industrial revolution, as talented women are being enslaved from respectable employment, in complete contrast to their male counterparts; whereby women’s role are circumscribed to marriage.
‘A lady, to be such, must be a mere lady and nothing else’
Grey expresses the severity of the situation of women, where they are not even allowed to work in their own houses doing trivial household duties, rather they are coerced in to taking up the useless ornamental role; to a point where life has no meaning. The source is quite useful, as it’s a diary entry, without an intended audience; therefore it’ll less likely be exaggerated.
Source 3 partially supports the argument, because the intriguing drawing illustrates several women being taught by a ‘master’, who not only is sitting in a patronising posture, but also is a man This not only shows the existence of male dominance, but also that the male dominated authorities did not take the education of the women seriously. The humorous caption ‘WHO WOULDN’T BE A DRAWING MASTER!’ is implying that the subject was too facile, and that anyone could pass and be a drawing master. However at the same time it is contradicting with the issue of ‘role’. To many people this profession may seem feminine as men were expected to take part in active work. Furthermore the integrity of the source may be questioned, as this is an extract from a middle class men journal, and could potentially be biased against women.
Collectively, most sources agree to the subordinate roles of women and the dominance of men, to a large extent. However there is no decisive evidence regarding the issue of ‘particular roles’ referred by May. This was possibly due to time differences (e.g. Source 4b & 4c), compared to the period May was referring to (early Victorian era/ 1836-1850), and not all sources reflected the perspectives of middle class women (sources 2 and 4).
