Victorian Ladies and Gentlemen

The Victorian time period was one drastically divided by the rich and the poor. Just like society today, there was a large gap between the rich and the poor and a very gray area that existed for the middle class. Being referred to as a "lady" or a "gentleman" greatly affected many aspects of their lives, including "...one's freedom to act, speak, learn, and earn" (555). Things are very different (in America) today because all men and women have equal opportunities according to the First Amendment. Further distinction existed regarding the position of middle class men and women. The women "...were to preside over the domestic sphere, the home and family, while men entered the fray of the world" (555). Basically, up until the Victorian period, most people supported these gendered roles and duties. Previously, no one seemed to really question why these roles had been set in place; they were brought up and taught to respect this way of life as something that had always been. However, as times began to change with the surge of Industrialism in England, so did women's views of their position in society. Some women continued to uphold the values of old, while others felt victimized and desired a change.

Sarah Stickney Ellis was one female writer who strongly supported the old school of thought. In her opinion, women should "...accept their inferiority to men and devote themselves to the happiness and moral elevation of their brothers, husbands, and sons" (557). This way of thinking obviously comes from tradition. Ellis did not question the duties of a woman and felt that it was unnecessary to fight for equality among men and women. Despite the fact that Ellis defined the responsibility of women very plainly, she did not devalue the wisdom and influence that women have on men: "How often has man returned to his home with a mind confused by the many voices...while his integrity was shaken...he has stood corrected before the clear eye of a woman..." (557). Ellis clearly acknowledges that women have a great duty to fulfill when it comes to discernment; it is the woman who acts as a "...secret influence, that he may have borne it about with him like a kind of second conscience, for mental reference, and spiritual counsel, in moments of trial" (557). Once again, Ellis clearly describes ways in which women are treasured and valued as members of society. She does not support female counsel outside the home or in the working world; however, she focuses on ways in which a woman's influence makes the difference in the world by way of the men they counsel: "...but as far as the noble daring of Britain has sent forth her adventurous sons...derived in no small measure from the female influence of their native country" (557). Ellis does not seem to carelessly overlook the powerful work of women in the home; in fact, she says that the prosperity of her nation comes from strong men who have been uplifted and supported by their sisters, mothers, and wives. Ellis further defends the position of women as she explains the significance of effective communication skills: "Women have the choice of many means of bringing their principles into exercise, and of obtaining influence...amongst the most important of these is conversation..." (559). Ellis believes that the role that women have in the home is crucial. She also thinks that women must have the gift of conversation in order to obtain an "...intellectual hold upon her husband's heart..." (559). She knows that if a woman merely connects to her husband on a physical or monetary level and fails to connect to her husband on a intellectual level, then she cannot fully serve her purpose in the home. Therefore, Ellis does not see women as victims of men or society; she believes that women will continue to be empowered in their "domestic spheres" as long as they effectively advise the men in their lives.

While Ellis voiced an opinion of one way of thought in the Victorian period, there were several others who strongly opposed her views and felt that women were victims of societal restraint, especially within the facility of marriage. Caroline Norton was a strong advocate for women's rights. She knew from personal experience that marriages were oftentimes very different than what they would have appeared. She was "...trapped in a disastrous marriage to a brutal man" and used her negative experience to "...bring this injustice into the public eye" (564). She was very unhappy with her marriage. She had no voice and felt she functioned more like an object, than as a person, in her marriage. More specifically, she was outraged by the lack of laws that existed to support and defend women who find themselves married to this kind of domineering and forceful man. She found that she had little to no rights in her situation, regardless of how terrible she was treated. Because of this, she made it her priority to speak out about women's rights hoping that she could make a difference for women in the future.

Norton openly shared how she felt about role of married women in society. She learned from experience that "...a woman's person and property were at her husband's disposal, not merely by custom but by law" (564). Norton has a huge issue with the fact that during this time, women were their husband's property. She thought that women should be partners with their husbands in marriage, rather than his subordinate. She was troubled by the notion that when "...husband and wife are one person, and the husband is that person" (564). This kind of thinking clearly relates that the women's role was essentially null and voice upon marriage. She feels that women become invisible when they marry. Married women are held captive by their husbands and are forced by him and by law, to do whatever he sees fit.

Norton decided to write a letter to the Queen in which she describes, in detail, the plethora of ways that women are denied equal rights in marriage. She begins by explaining that "a married woman in England has no legal existence: her being is absorbed in that of her husband" (565). Norton believed that it was unfair for women to loose any kind of legal support in England based on the fact that they were married. She thought that married women should have the same legal rights as married men. She is depressed by the notion that "...legal fiction holds her to be "one" with her husband, even though she may never see or hear from him" (565). Norton cannot believe that in a country as wonderful as England, that they would uphold this kind of law. The law permits men to leave their wives and do whatever they want to do (even live with another woman), leaving their wives ignored and alone. Even in this situation, a women at this time has no legal rights to support her desire for a divorce. In fact, Norton points out that "...in only four instances (two of which were cases of incest), has the wife obtained a divorce to marry again" (566). Out of all the broken marriages in England, only four of them were ended because the wife sought a divorce. While the reader is not given the number of married men who file for divorce, my guess would be that it is far greater than four. Her point is that it is ridiculous and unfair for women to remain unhappily married because the law will not allow her to make something more of her life.

Norton continues as she goes into greater depth about the roles and characteristics of men and women in married relationships. She begins by explaining that "he is not bound to her. He is bound to his country; bound to see that she does not cumber the parish in which she resides" (566). This argument portrays the attitude of many men in marriage. They do not feel any kind of responsibility to love and care for their wives; rather, they are to make sure they defend their country and keep their wives out of trouble. What kind of marriage would that be? Why then would any woman enter into the facility of marriage if this were the way she would be treated? Norton is obviously disgusted and outraged by the poor way that married women are treated during this time. It is clear through her many arguments that things were totally unfair and the scale was tipped in favor of men. There was no good reason for the way things were, or for the lack of laws that supported women's rights in marriage as much as men's rights in marriage. She portrays a multitude of laws that fail to uphold the equality of women in marriage and strongly fights to defend the position of women at this time.

After reading work from Ellis and Norton, it is rather strange that these women have such diverse views on the role of women in society. Ellis does not seem to mind being labeled as a second class part of society, falling behind her husband. While she acknowledges her role in marriage and as a mother and sister, she explains that she finds inner strength and is empowered by the way her influence affects the men in her lives. She does not desire to voice her opinions loudly or make a name for herself; she would rather use her womanly gifts to manipulate the men in her lives to make a changes. On the contrary, Norton was very dissatisfied with the position women were forced to uphold. She found no empowerment in her relationship with her husband and thought it necessary to find a way out. She wanted England to change the laws regarding marriage, thus giving women a chance to make a name for themselves, rather than hiding behind their husbands and following his lead.

People are often on different sides of an issue in life because everyone is entitled to make their own opinions. What is interesting to consider in the case of Ellis vs. Norton is how their relationships with their husbands might have caused them to feel the way that they did. From what I can gather, it seems that Ellis had a good relationship with her husband. While he may have been unaware of her influence over him, he did often seek her counsel and then was left to make his own decision. I am led to believe that he would usually do whatever his wife advised. On the other hand, we knows that Norton had a terrible marriage in which her husband never acknowledged her presence, never mind listening to what she had to say. What I learn from this is perhaps their varying views stem from the reality of their personal experience with marriage. If one is happily married it is not surprising that she would respect her role in society as being less powerful than her husband. If the other is unhappily married, it is not surprising that she would feel like a victim in society with no laws to support legal rights that she feels she is entitled to have. This is a case of the way personal experience molds our judgement and outlook on various aspects of life.