Quite. In one of those ironies feminist historians are forever pointing out famous women etc. Proving in fact the "patriarchy" was in fact rubbish at oppressing women. The real point is that these women, like the men, were generally aristocratic and so lived lives entirely unlike the vast majority of men and women who were subsistence fa…
Quite. In one of those ironies feminist historians are forever pointing out famous women etc. Proving in fact the "patriarchy" was in fact rubbish at oppressing women. The real point is that these women, like the men, were generally aristocratic and so lived lives entirely unlike the vast majority of men and women who were subsistence farmers. The point being that "society" was an entirely different thing prior to the industrial revolution, certainly here in England. At the dawning of that revolution only 6% of men had the vote (it was based on property ownership) and the sort of people in the Austin novels made little more than 7% of the population (gentry and aristocrats). The rest scraped a living, got bossed about and were luck to live to 50.
Thanks for mentioning Austen, Nigel. Whatever their literary value, all of her novels are essentially the same: social satire on the upper and lower gentry of her time. Feminists have renewed her popularity but only by interpreting it through a gynocentric lens--that is, by replacing Austen's interest in class with their own interest in "gender." They comment only, therefore, on the plight of women from "poor" families who needed desperately to marry titled men. Their alternatives were to live with relatives, become governesses or rely on some unusual talent (which is what Austen herself did as a writer). The reality, for both women and men, was somewhat more complicated than feminist theory (which accounts for only those of the aristocracy and gentry of early nineteenth-century England).
It's true that some men chose careers in the government, the army or the church (whether they had any interest, let alone competence in any of those careers). Other choices were discouraged. Only men of the uncouth nouveau-riche class built industries or worked in "trade." Only parents of the dreaded middle classes encouraged their (presumably eccentric) sons to become physicians or lawyers. So most upper-class men--the most prestigious ones--did not earn money at all. They lived on the rents of tenant farmers at their ancestral estates . As Austen observes, they had to either gamble for money it at the faro tables or marry it (which was in itself a form of gambling). This meant that those "marriageable" men, like women, seldom married for love in any modern sense of that word. These were marriages of convenience for both sexes, usually arranged by the parents (although they were not necessarily unhappier than modern marriages).
And I forgot one thing. Thanks to the law of primogeniture, only eldest sons could inherit those country estates and the accompanying titles. Other men of the upper classes were on their own.
And as you say they couldn't be "Gentlemen" and actually have a job. Way back at school when we had to read the "classics" for exams. A penny sort of dropped when reading Dickens and Austin, how very different things were. Lots of characters had no work as such, relying on "income" and even more strange to me there appeared no stigma at all to not working; whereas even in the 1970s rich and/or titled people (including the Royal family) were keen to suggest they "worked" rather than being ladies or gentlemen of leisure. Even then it struck me how different that society was in the past. A couple of years later at University I took an interest in some feminist lectures and writings (in those days we were encouraged to "broaden" our education by attending lectures from other Courses/Faculties.) And it struck me that much of the "evidence" was derived from old novels, as if these were reliable sources of sociological or even historical conditions. The more so coming from a working class background in the NW of England meant that were no examples in my family then or the previous generations where both sexes didn't work, in terms of paid work even if it was taking work into the home (sewing, washing, batch cooking "doing Avon"). The only people I knew where the mother didn't work were the Doctors and wives of Teachers and the wife of a "head Engineer" at GEC. I suspect this pattern wasn't universal (maybe women didn't work in mining towns as opposed to the Mill Towns) But I recall the economist Catherine Hakim pointing out that the proportion of women economically active in 2000 was the same as in 1900 (often in "service" or other industries now defunct (such as textiles and garments). Which reminds me Hakim's "Preference Theory" is as good an explanation as any of the increasing "gender segregation"in occupations observed in all developed nations as they increase in wealth. The basic being that as there is more and more choice of occupations open. Women, for rational reasons, choose a relatively narrow band of occupations to crowd into. Precisely the phenomena the Swedes got so concerned about a decade ago.
Quite. In one of those ironies feminist historians are forever pointing out famous women etc. Proving in fact the "patriarchy" was in fact rubbish at oppressing women. The real point is that these women, like the men, were generally aristocratic and so lived lives entirely unlike the vast majority of men and women who were subsistence farmers. The point being that "society" was an entirely different thing prior to the industrial revolution, certainly here in England. At the dawning of that revolution only 6% of men had the vote (it was based on property ownership) and the sort of people in the Austin novels made little more than 7% of the population (gentry and aristocrats). The rest scraped a living, got bossed about and were luck to live to 50.
Thanks for mentioning Austen, Nigel. Whatever their literary value, all of her novels are essentially the same: social satire on the upper and lower gentry of her time. Feminists have renewed her popularity but only by interpreting it through a gynocentric lens--that is, by replacing Austen's interest in class with their own interest in "gender." They comment only, therefore, on the plight of women from "poor" families who needed desperately to marry titled men. Their alternatives were to live with relatives, become governesses or rely on some unusual talent (which is what Austen herself did as a writer). The reality, for both women and men, was somewhat more complicated than feminist theory (which accounts for only those of the aristocracy and gentry of early nineteenth-century England).
It's true that some men chose careers in the government, the army or the church (whether they had any interest, let alone competence in any of those careers). Other choices were discouraged. Only men of the uncouth nouveau-riche class built industries or worked in "trade." Only parents of the dreaded middle classes encouraged their (presumably eccentric) sons to become physicians or lawyers. So most upper-class men--the most prestigious ones--did not earn money at all. They lived on the rents of tenant farmers at their ancestral estates . As Austen observes, they had to either gamble for money it at the faro tables or marry it (which was in itself a form of gambling). This meant that those "marriageable" men, like women, seldom married for love in any modern sense of that word. These were marriages of convenience for both sexes, usually arranged by the parents (although they were not necessarily unhappier than modern marriages).
And I forgot one thing. Thanks to the law of primogeniture, only eldest sons could inherit those country estates and the accompanying titles. Other men of the upper classes were on their own.
And as you say they couldn't be "Gentlemen" and actually have a job. Way back at school when we had to read the "classics" for exams. A penny sort of dropped when reading Dickens and Austin, how very different things were. Lots of characters had no work as such, relying on "income" and even more strange to me there appeared no stigma at all to not working; whereas even in the 1970s rich and/or titled people (including the Royal family) were keen to suggest they "worked" rather than being ladies or gentlemen of leisure. Even then it struck me how different that society was in the past. A couple of years later at University I took an interest in some feminist lectures and writings (in those days we were encouraged to "broaden" our education by attending lectures from other Courses/Faculties.) And it struck me that much of the "evidence" was derived from old novels, as if these were reliable sources of sociological or even historical conditions. The more so coming from a working class background in the NW of England meant that were no examples in my family then or the previous generations where both sexes didn't work, in terms of paid work even if it was taking work into the home (sewing, washing, batch cooking "doing Avon"). The only people I knew where the mother didn't work were the Doctors and wives of Teachers and the wife of a "head Engineer" at GEC. I suspect this pattern wasn't universal (maybe women didn't work in mining towns as opposed to the Mill Towns) But I recall the economist Catherine Hakim pointing out that the proportion of women economically active in 2000 was the same as in 1900 (often in "service" or other industries now defunct (such as textiles and garments). Which reminds me Hakim's "Preference Theory" is as good an explanation as any of the increasing "gender segregation"in occupations observed in all developed nations as they increase in wealth. The basic being that as there is more and more choice of occupations open. Women, for rational reasons, choose a relatively narrow band of occupations to crowd into. Precisely the phenomena the Swedes got so concerned about a decade ago.