It's common knowledge that women in the 19th century had little to no rights, but it's interesting to find out the specifics of such oppression. It's easy to say "Women had no rights," but to truly sit down and think about every single thing that a woman was not able to do is astounding and troublesome in equal parts. It baffles me to think that women weren't allowed to own any property, real or personal. The clothes on my back, the shoes on my feet - all belong to my husband! To know that the things I consider to be my own are only that because of my husband, quite frankly, irritates me. I cannot imagine living my life knowing that the moment I get married, everything that belonged to my father would be passed to my husband; my clothes, my wages, even the custody of my children. As someone who was taught to have a separate bank account from her husband after marriage, I cannot fathom the thought of having to give up all of my earnings to my husband.
Another thing that bothered me was the fact that no law court in England could grant a divorce. A woman was trapped, well and truly in her marriage. The only way she would be able to leave her husband was if he allowed her to live separately from him. She still had to keep his last name, and he still had a right to all of her earnings and belongings in the time they were apart. As soon as she was married, a woman was no longer her own person, she was simply an extension of her husband. She was defined by the man in her life, with no real existence.
In our age, it's strange to think that these social injustices went on for so long. We as a society think that we are far beyond that point; we consider those laws to be antiquated and barbaric. We have made progress, that's for sure, but we still live in an age where misogyny rules. Although a man, or even a woman, may not actively hate women, there are still laws on the books that oppress women. For example, if a women is married and intends to buy a house, she must have her husband's signature on the contract. Why isn't a woman's signature good enough on it's own?
Knowing that from the moment I was born, I was ten paces behind every man in this country doesn't make the oppression of the nineteenth century woman as antiquated or barbaric as I wish it was.
You and I certainly see eye to eye on the injustice of women's rights, both in nineteenth-century England and today! I wonder if a woman from Bronte's culture were to arrive in America in this day and age, how she would react to current social/gender justice/injustice. While you and I understand that there is still a sense of gender inequality, I'm sure the woman would think us petty for dwelling on it. The fact that her signature could exist on a contract at all, whether accompanied by her husband's or not, would probably be mind-blowing. I wonder if she would relish in and celebrate these rights, or be frightened and overwhelmed by them.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there are lots of gender injustices that still need to handled in this day and age, but I believe that as a society, we have come a very long way from the "barbaric" laws on the 18th and 19th centuries. However, I'd like to ask, with the law that you referenced, do you know if a man's signature on the contract is just good enough for the sale? I wonder if it's more of a they need both signatures of the main occupants that will be paying the mortgage than gender?
ReplyDeleteAgain, unmarried women can definitely purchase a house with no other signature than their own if there's just no one else to sign besides themselves. I don't know of any laws that require their male parent or guardian to sign off on the house, so I suppose that is progress in itself!
I think, too, that the fact that women had no real right to their own intellectual property is the most insulting thing. They could write, but their husbands were allowed to take the proceeds. Many times, men were even given the credit for works created by women. There was a belief that there was always a man working secretly behind the scenes for women writers. Even their creations didn't belong to them. Property rights are one thing, but not owning the rights to your own mind has to be even more infuriating.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that back then, men could indeed take credit from women and get all their profit from their creative works. However, look at the stereotypical jokes of modern times. Isn't there some sort of saying that says "Behind every great man is an even greater woman"? It is interesting to how the roles have changed.
ReplyDeleteYes, in a way, it's almost shedding light on how men are more likely to take credit for what a woman may have done to begin with, but it is also an ongoing joke in popular television that the man is always the stupid, irrational character while the woman is intelligent and composed. Many sitcoms have shown this from "According to Jim" to "King of Queens" to "Everybody Loves Raymond". Many, many popular shows feed off of these archetypes for their characters. I just find it a bit amusing that a role reversal has taken place in the past few decades.