“There are many humble-minded women, not remarkable for any particular intellectual endowment, who yet possess so clear a sense of right and wrong of individual actions, as to be of essential service in aiding the judgements of their husbands, brothers, or sons in whose intricate affairs in which it is sometimes difficult to dissever worldly wisdom from religious duty,” (page 557, Sarah Stickney Ellis) It is pleasant to hear lovely things about my gender. It’s flattering to think that, as a woman, I am naturally of higher moral character than men. With this kind of intuition, I don’t need a formal education. It’s superfluous. My time is much better spent letting my natural sweetness shine out on the poor, virtueless males that cross my path. These poor souls are rather unfortunately disposed towards, “inborn selfishness, or his worldly pride,” (Sarah Stickney Ellis, page 557).
This kind of philosophy strikes a bad chord with me (in case you hadn’t noticed), for a variety of reasons. First, it is an insult to men. I’ve personally met several male persons who were more morally inclined than myself. A sense of right and wrong doesn’t come from being a man or a woman. It can come from religion, or perhaps philosophy, or a simple, conscience, or maybe a natural inclination towards virtue. I would also argue that it comes from experience, from trial and error in the issues of everyday life. In this light, it is awfully difficult for a woman to be moral when she is locked up in an ivory tower, simply sitting, “in her drawing room like a doll-Madonna in her shrine,” (page 571, “George Elliot”).
Descriptions of women as saintly beings is also unbearable flattery. Implied in it is a pressure to be always good, always sweet, and never questioning, and to be anything else is to fail as a woman. In fact, that’s probably why the opinion was passed down from generation to generation. What better way to keep someone in an inferior position than to build a cage with invisible bars. Young girls, raised with this kind of flattery, strive to meet those expectations without seeing the prison it creates. Mary Wollstonecraft, in previous readings, wrote that those in power, “would rather justify oppression that correct abuses,” (page 62). (I know that I’ve used this quote in other blogs, but gosh darn it, it’s a good quote!) So it is that society justified the treatment of women with shameless flattery.
Readings like these make me feel lucky that I live when I do, that I can attend college and pursue a career in the field that I choose. Times have truly changed. Well, at least I think they have. I still encounter the old female stereotype every now and then. “Women are supposed to possess more sensibility, and even humanity, than men, and their strong attachments and instantaneous emotions of compassion are given as proofs,” (page 571, “George Elliot” quoting Mary Wollstonecraft). Are women really more emotional, more compassionate than men? Or is it just how they have been raised? Boys and girls are still brought up with different expectations. Girls get dolls, boys get action figures. It is socially acceptable, expected even, for a woman to cry at the movies, but it is thing of comedy for a man to do so. Women are raised to be more comfortable with public displays or expressions of emotion. Men, not so much. Therefore, this kind of thinking and stereotyping, I would argue is just as limiting to men as it is to women.
Heather,
ReplyDeleteVery insightful analysis of gender roles in the readings from these Victorian readings and from our own culture. I agree that women today have a lot of advantages and opportunities, but that certainly isn't true in all countries and societies today. And even in our own, as you point out, there are still many gender norms that may feel constricting to men or to women. Good comments on Ellis's and Wollstonecraft's quotations.
I agree that women are not always the moral compasses for society and that some men do hold higher moral standards than women. However, that was one the double standards forced upon women during the Victorian Age among others that women today are still trying to shake.
ReplyDeleteYour comments about how we chose to raise our children are dead on! I do think these things have a big influence on how we act as adults. However, I don't think children are raised consistently in certain gender roles. I work as a nanny, and the gender of the oldest sibling can have just as big of an effect on the environment. For example, the types of toys a young girl with an older brother plays with are very different from the toys a young boy with an older sister plays with. I think these standards and roles are less concrete than the black and white pictures these authors present....
ReplyDelete