I believe this author’s argument has been included in a course on gender, history and culture because it more closely assess the implications of the social constructs of gender and culture that have developed over time. In conclusion Jordanova sets out to achieve what the article is posing, a need for the unpacking of naturalization, inciting the reader to question today’s ideas, theories, experiences, languages, and so on, and their validity in today society.
Part 2)
Over the past two centuries, we have seen great changes in marital relations and gendered identities within marriage. These in turn have changed the way in which women are regarded in today’s society. However national histories are still being written that do little more than to include women of Australia, as a tolerable additive. The readings of Davidoff and Hall, Grimshaw (et.al.) and Saunders and Evans all introduce very different approaches to the discussion of history and gender, giving the reader an insight to the reasons such changes in marital relations and gendered identities within marriage came about.
Davidoff and Hall studies identify the neglected dimension of gender and the impact of history of middleclass England. The study was based mainly on a sample of middle class households from the 1851 census. (Davidoff & Hall, 1987 p. 34) During their research a special focus is on the family enterprise, its structure was seen as a “powerful idiom” which identified men as powerful and women as dependant. Men were given a dual role in the household, one of head of the family and also of husband/father, while women remained within a family role. They highlight the shortcomings of Marxism, which totally ignored gender influence and relevance. Marxism perpetrates the myth of male domination, relegating the women to the family and home. In their book “Family Fortunes” they note that sexual identity affects every level of social form and that women have never been consulted or included in the relating and writings of history. Hence history has always been given a male bias.
Grimshaw’s et al. book explores the creation of a gendered history within Australia through the idea of cultural difference. This book aims to reconceptualize familiar themes in the national story and to introduce new ones (Grimshaw et al. 1994 p. 4). Australia inherited a paternalistic society from its English colonists who dominated the indigenous people and forced them to conform to the white man’s ways through brutality and violence. Subsequently Australia has grown to become a multi-cultural society, leading to a clash in cultural ideas and social values. This is no more evident than in today’s society, where Australia’s indigenous people are still looking for an apology for the way they were treated during Australia’s conception. This diverse culture is then ironically expected to become one nation.
In Saunders and Evans book “ Gender Relation in Australia: Domination and Negotiation, they challenge the problem of conceptualising unity, by making us aware of the male domination of gender. Male historians dominated their profession and regardless of political affiliation, wrote as though their sex denoted the species. Male dominated politics further expanded the white man’s domination over all aspects of society. It was only in the 1970’s that this account began to be questioned. Women have been excluded from historical accounts and all realms of formal power. However it is interesting to note, white women dominated Aboriginal women, using them for domestic labour. By handing over their domestic role, white women were able to become superior. We can no longer legitimately consider ‘ man’ to be a universal category, neither should we begin to visualise ‘women’ in a simular way. (Saunders & Evans 1992 p.xvii)
Marital relations and gender identity have progressed gradually since the 1800’s. Society at this time was totally male dominated and controlled according to class and financial status. Women were seen to be the property of the husband and could be treated or mistreated as the husband wished. (Dyhouse 1989 p.150) Although they entered into marriage it was not considered a very permanent institution. Marriages were easily dissolved by supposed mutual agreement or wife sale and the man had no legal financial obligation to support his wife and family.
This is clearly shown in the case of a barmaid Mary Ann Bennet after marrying an engineer named John Joyles and bearing his child, she found herself suddenly abandoned. When she went to the courts for support and constitution she then found Mr Joyles was already wed and therefore a bigamist. Mr Joyles first wife lied in court to gain his financial support, therefore leaving Mary Ann destitute. (Taylor 1984 p.199)
Many women found themselves living in poverty, labouring in workhouses or resorting to prostitution, in order to support themselves and their children. Middleclass professionals and businessmen used their increasing economic superiority to have moral and cultural authority. This is no clearer than in the situation of the surplus women. Created by a male preference for late marriage and more women than men in the population, these spinsters had no employment opportunities. It was frowned upon for middle class women to work, hence they were forced to be dependant on the generosity of a male relative or become destitute.
The Feminist Movement beginning in the late 1800’s questioned the role and legal rights of women in society and marriage. The Men and Women’s Club was set up in 1885 by Karl Pearson. This club had both men and women members and discussed questions on marriage reform. Topics discussed were easier divorce, rape in marriage, birth control and sexually transmitted diseases. (Bland 1986 p.126-135). This same movement lead to women demanding a rite to vote and the questioning of sexual morality in marriage. Reform followed with a new morality leading to rape and violence in marriage no longer being tolerated.
All these articles deal with gender history and the society they have created. It becomes clear that males have manipulated the way that we see both history and its written account. Women have been almost totally excluded from the storytelling creating a male bias, which is still evident today. There are still echoes of the oppression suffered by women in society and there is a need to rewrite history, taking into account the influence that women and other minority groups have contributed.
Bibliography
L. Davidoff & C. Hall Family Fortunes, Routledge: London, 1992
P. Grimshaw (et al). Creating a Nation, Penguin Books Aust Ltd. Victoria Australia 1994
L. Bland, Labour and Love : Experience of Home and Family, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1986
B. Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem, Virago, London, 1984
C. Dyhouse, Feminism and the Family in England 1880-1939, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1989
K. Saunders & R. Evans, Gender Relation in Australia: Domination and Negotiation, Hardcourt, Brace & Jovanovich, Sydney 1992