Talk:Women in the Victorian era
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Women in the Victorian era article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Early comments
- 2 Working Class Domestic Life
- 3 Inaccurate
- 4 An absurdity that just bounced out
- 5 Unbelievable
- 6 POV
- 7 Silly Vandalism
- 8 This article is limited
- 9 Inaccurate Grounds for Divorce?
- 10 Women and Sex
- 11 Women's Work
- 12 Plaigiarism
- 13 Consider changing title
- 14 Requested move
- 15 Missing sources
- 16 should be moved to feminism section and removed from others.
What sources are there, if any? >< --Chezzie 14:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Chezzie
Prose needs to be cleaned up. -Emiao
I cleaned up the article, then made some changes.
Working Class Domestic Life
This sentence is misleading: "The poorer the neighbourhood, the higher the rents." The next sentence is correct, and explains that slum rents were 4 to 10 times greater than West End rents *per foot*. (This is supported by an accurate citation to "The Blackest Streets.") Rents were not actually higher in the slums: rather, total rental income was higher - as the cited book explains, so many people were crammed together in small spaces that landlords could achieve higher rental income per foot than from West End properties. But as written, someone might think that rents were literally lower in nicer parts of town, which is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC) By the way, this does not give any information that people are looking for.......
The line: "The legal rights of married women were similar to those of children; they could not vote or sue or even own property." This is incorrect, they actually could own property. It was just legally absorbed by their husbands when they married. Someone fix this please.
i know this sounds like totally dumb, but all these comments are really negative!!! just wanted 2 add, thanks to everyone who wrote accurate pieces of informations onto this site, it really helped me with my homework!!!! love chloe x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
An absurdity that just bounced out
"and he had the right to enforce this by a writ of habeas corpus" in Limited rights of married women section.
Now this is amusing for 3 reasons 1) habeas corpus is a writ relating to detained persons 2) "bring me my wifes body" invokes some fairly interesting sexual connotations most of which are not entirely in line with the alleged Victorian sacred temple concept - the remainder of the article makes this very funny. 3) its very hard to enforce ones will on somebody merely by having their physical presence.
I think what the author was intending on suggesting was that a husband could apply for an enforcement of "conjugal rights" - although IIRC so could a wife and the concept of "restoration of conjugal rights" still exists in some jurisdictions Paul Hjul 07:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm writing my comment on the wrong page, I'm not quite sure how this programme works. While doing some reseach I came accross these sentences at the end of the topic 'Women and sex'.. "It was also hot and the men liked it very much. The women wore normal chlothes to find the men to sell themselves to. She liked when the man..... The man liked it too. The woman also ...all over." I'm sorry, but this person is clearly on the wrong site, has a low IQ (judging by his english) and has very little knowledge about sex... If I knew how it worked I would edit this page myself, unfortunately when I click on edit - these sentences don't appear! I don't understand why... but could someone else be so kind as to do something about it?!
This article doesn't strike me as having a particularly neutral POV.
"they were to be treated as saints, but saints that had no legal rights."
Niall Jackson 13:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the line: "can you actually change anything on this site? that's whack." as it it is unrelated to the topic and a form of petty vandalism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Hjul (talk • contribs) 08:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
I'm a bit fed up about this as I am trying to do serious research, but there seem to be a lot of edits by people with only IP addresses (not logged in as proper users) that get reverted. It appears that someone is vandalising this page somehow. Now if anyone here definitely knows about this subject I would love to get in touch with them as I'm having difficulty finding what I want on the web or in the University library... Aboodoo (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is limited
This article only explores Victorian women (especially sexuality) on the most superfical level, and seems to rely more on pre-concieved stereotypes of Victorian womanhood than actualy historical sources. It talks about sexual repression, but it doesn't even see fit to so much as MENTION Female hysteria, or how "pelvic massage" (read:masturbation) was actually recommended for this. Nor does it mention women in the American West broke several taboos. This an unsourced, simplistic, shallow, POV trainwreck of an article and it desperately needs to be worked on by an expert. Asarelah 17:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Just from a cursory look at this article I fear I find myself sympathetic to the above sentiment. When someone more expert on this subject does tackle this, could they please include material about the distinguished Victorian surgeon who claimed that decent women were untroubled by sexual pleasure? Was this indeed a prevalent medical opinion at the time? - Wordherder, August 2007
- This article seems only to consider upper-class women. There was a huge difference between upper-class and lower-class women in Victorian era. I am making edits to enforce this distinction. Roger6r (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Inaccurate Grounds for Divorce?
The article states, "But while the husband only had to prove his wife's adultery, a woman had to prove her husband had not only committed adultery but also incest, bigamy, cruelty or desertion."
Does the author mean to say that a man could not be divorced unless he was guilty of all five offenses? This does not seem to be correct. While I have not examined the statute in question, a more likely answer is that a husband could divorce his wife only for adultery, while a wife could divorce her husband for adultery and also had the additional grounds of incest, bigamy, cruelty, or desertion.
- I assume it's intended to say that a woman had to prove adultery AND ALSO one of the additional aggravating factors. Before ca. 1850, women's rights in England to divorce allowing subsequent remarriage was extremely limited. Churchh (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Women and Sex
Someone (preferably with knowledge of Victorian laws) should rewrite this section, it is a mess. What relevance do medieval beliefs have here? The unequal treatment of women and men when it came to adultery is well-known, but is the justification presented true (i.e. do we have legal judgments that mentioned the reasons to do with inheritance of property), or is this an example of modern musings about why people did this or that in the past? Also, in some places courts made laws, in others it was the legislature or a fiat from the monarch - we can't just generalize about courts making laws. And if sex was for procreation only, never for pleasure, what were those 50,000 (or whatever the number) brothels engaged in in Victorian London?
- Agreed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/victorian_britain/women_home/ideals_womanhood_01.shtml is a good source: it's written by Lynn Abrams, who is the Professor of Gender History at Glasgow University, and has written various books and articles on the subject. Also, something needs to be done about the silly vandalism. Currently it's calling Victorian women 'slutfaces', which is just stupid. Alimorag (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Why does this article self-contradict? The abstract and the article contradict each other over the jobs a woman could hold in the Victorian period... this sort of thing should not be happening on Wikipedia where you can edit the article... Aboodoo (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is almost exactly the same as the text found at http://5b-english4us.blogspot.com/2009/01/role-of-women-in-victorian-age.html. I believe that solves the "sources" problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunnygal239 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like the blog was actually plagiarizing the Wikipedia article, since our text predates the blog post. It's also possible that both this article and the blog post are plagiarizing a third source. Kaldari (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Consider changing title
I checked the history of this article and found that in 2005 it had quite a lot of sources (although not as inline cites). The problem is, the article has been vandalised and reverted so many times since then that they disappeared and were never restored. I'll list them below as they may prove useful for sourcing the article in its current state. Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Prof. Dr. Vera Nünning’s Seminar “Angels and Whoress: Women in the 19th century” at the English Department of the Ruprecht-Karls University of Heidelberg, Germany, winter semester 2004/2005.
- Notes and further reading
- Bodichon, Barbara Leigh Smith. Married Women and the Law (1854) in Murray, J. Strong-minded women and other lost voices from nineteenth-century England. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984, 118-29.
- Beeton, I. The Household General (1861) in: Murray, J. Strong-minded women and other lost voices from nineteenth-century England. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984, 83-88.
- Gred, William Rathborne. Why are women redundant? (1862) in Murray, J. Strong-minded women and other lost voices from nineteenth-century England. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984, 50f.
- Michie, Helena. Under Victorian Skins in Tucker, Herbert F. (ed). A Companion to Victorian Literature, 407-24.
- Ryan, Michael Dr. Prostitution in London (1839) in Fisher, T. Prostitution and the Victorians, 2-5.
- Adams, James Eli. Victorian Sexualities in Tucker, Herbert F. (ed). A Companion to Victorian Literature, 125-38.
- Stone, Lawrence. The Road to Divorce. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1992, 153-65.
- The Contagious Diseases Acts in Murray, J. Strong-Minded Women, 424-37 and Fisher, Trevor. Prostitition and The Victorians. 80-94.
- Woodham Smith, Cecil. Florence Nightingale, 1820-1910 (London: Constable, 1950), 77f.
- Nightingale Florence, Advice to Young Women 1868 in Murray, J. Strong-minded women, 303f.
- Nünning, Vera. Der Englische Roman des 19. Jahrhunderts. Uni-Wissen Anglistik/Amerikanistik. Stuttgart: Klett, 2000
- Sewell, Sarah. Against higher education for women (1868) in Murray, J. Strong-minded women and other lost voices from nineteenth-century England. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984, 213f.
- Lewis, Sarah. Woman's Mission (1839) in Murray, J. Strong-minded women and other lost voices from nineteenth-century England. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984, 23-25.
This article had some good info at one point, now we're left with...what we have now. I think I'll take a go at adding info to it in the next few weeks. Since it's the Victorian era, I guess I'll take the scope of England-plus-the-colonies. We still observe Victoria Day in Canada every May, so what the heck. Hopefully others can add to areas I'm not very familiar with (e.g. India) Tentative outline:
- Influences (brief discussion of Regency era and broader social/political/economic issues)
- Legal rights (chronology of significant changes)
- Workplace role
- Sexuality and birth control
- Women's organizations
- Women and social/government institutions
- Growth of early suffrage movement
- Women's leisure
......Hopefully that will get the article started again.....
- I got my mitts on a copy of "Strong-minded Women and Other Lost Voices" cited as a source above from the older version of this article -- so hopefully I can add inline citations to some of the older information that had been in this article. Yayz. OttawaAC (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
should be moved to feminism section and removed from others.
its heavily slanted towards making history prove women were victims in this period rather than describing their life.