Separate+Spheres+of+Gendered+Activity

“God created men and women different – then let them remain each in their own position.” Queen Victoria, letter 29, May 1870 (Marsh)

The Victorian period can be viewed, as Jan Marsh explains, in two ways: as a male dominated society or as a society that gradually saw the emergence of women’s opposition to their exclusion from the male public sphere (Marsh). The strict segregation of gender permeated all aspects of Victorian life, creating the separate spheres of gendered activity: the male, public sphere and the female, private sphere. Laslett and Brenner argue that these “separate spheres were institutionalized as the culturally and socially hegemonic form of gender relations” (386). However, by the end of the period, these separate spheres and the gender ideologies that upheld them began to break down.

Men dominated the public sphere and exerted control over finances, the household and the family. Women were left with the care of the children and the domestic aspects of the household, and “were not expected to know more than the routine of domestic management” (Chapman, 10). Even in the private sphere, women adhered to the authority of their husbands, fathers and brothers (Marsh). Virginity, female lack of passion and motherhood were idealized. Popularized literary stereotypes of women arose, most famously the portrayal of the wife as the “Angel of the House” from the 1854 poem of the same name by Coventry Patmore. Another common fictional depiction of the wife was as “young, dependant [and] almost childlike” as the “essence of femininity was dependence” (Parker 15). Women were thought of as the weaker sex both physically and intellectually, as can be seen in John Ruskin’s description of the ideal woman in //Sesame and Lilies// (1865): "tThe woman’s] intellect is not for invention or creation, but for sweet ordering, arrangement, and decision. [. . .] She must be enduringly, incorruptibly good; instinctively, infallibly wise -wise, not for self-development, but for self-renunciation: wise, not that she may set herself above her husband" (Ruskin 117). Similarly, Ruskin idealizes masculinity in terms of courage, strength and endeavor: The man's power is active, progressive, defensive. He is eminently the doer, the creator, the discoverer, [and] the defender. His intellect is for speculation, and invention; his energy for adventure, for war, and for conquest" (Ruskin 117). These binary conceptions of gender relations were derived from and directly influenced by the religious and social frameworks of the time.

Marriage was expected of men and women, but most especially of women during the Victorian period. In fact, the separate spheres particularly influenced women’s married life. Once married, a woman was her husband’s property. Marriage during this time held men and women to very different standards and the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 perpetuated this hypocrisy, while also giving women some agency. This act of legislature “required the exacerbation of adultery by other offences in a husband whilst adultery alone was sufficient infringement by a wife” (Furneaux, 768). Although this act upheld the double standard of gender, the act also made divorce legal in Britain and “was the first law to protect a wife’s property” (Hager). Although the double standard of marriage was largely was socially acceptable, it was beginning to be questioned by feminist reformers such as the women writers and activists associated with the Langham Place Group and the //English Woman’s Journal//.

The nineteenth century saw drastic changes in the workplace, most notably the introduction of women. Traditionally, “[the terms] ‘men’ and ‘work’ were used as virtual synonyms” and masculinity was heavily associated with work (Danahay, 1). With the arrival of industrialization and urbanization, the division of gender began to break down. Work for women depended on class: “while poor women worked alongside men in factories and workshops, the more favored classes sat at home … sewing for missions and charities” (Chapman, 11). All classes of Victorians followed the conventional “Gospel of Work” approach, the dominant attitude that was characterized by a mixture of self-discipline and piety (Danahay, 24). Many women went into domestic work while men were allowed to be doctors, politicians or government officials. Although women during the Victorian period became apart of the workplace, their role in the workplace was uncertain, as this sphere was still dominated by men.

During the Victorian era there was a major shift in opening education to women. In 1848, Queens College in Harley Street opened with the intention of helping governesses obtain a better education (Chapman, 11). Eventually, however, its intake widened to “ spread to other young women, and it proved to be a pioneer of schools and colleges where segregated but adequate education could be obtained” (Chapman, 11). Educational subjects were offered along gendered lines: Latin and Geology were deemed suitable for boys, and Literature and Geography for girls (Marsh). Women in the period who learned the Classics, such as Elizabeth Barrett, were from a privileged class and were educated at home by private male tutors (often their brothers’ tutors). As the century progressed, however, higher educational institutions opened their doors to women. The most prominent example is Girton College, Cambridge, which was founded in 1869.

To the Victorians, sexual pleasure was considered a strictly male prerogative and respectable women were conventionally seen as asexual. Middle-class sexuality was to be hidden, as represented in the clothing men and women wore. Women were not: “[t]o show as much as an ankle, dresses with long skirts were worn in the [workplace] as well as in the home” and men “dressed severely and somberly. Tight trousers confirmed the general air of constraint” (Chapman, 6&7). Although Victorian sexuality was oppressive, the period was also a “key moment in the history of sexuality; the era in which the modern terminologies we use to structure the ways we think and talk about sexuality were invented” (Furneaux, 769). Terms such as “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality” were created during this time period. A double standard existed, as women were to uphold the feminine ideal of purity, yet a man could be promiscuous without judgment. Prostitution was viewed as an epidemic during the period, as an alarming rise in venereal disease among upper and middle class households led to intense public debate. The Contagious Diseases Acts of 1864, 1866 and 1869 attempted to remedy the problem “by the forcible medical examination of women prostitutes […] or women suspected of being a prostitute”, but “often the diseased utensils used in the examinations spread disease to clean women” (Furneaux, 768). There was a vigorous feminist campaign to repeal the Acts, which finally succeeded in 1886. Although Victorians were uncomfortable with sex “it is certainly not true that all Victorians feared sex and tried to ignore it, [and] a great many of them were preoccupied with sexuality” (Johnson, 18). Although conventional middle-class Victorian ideology separated the activities of men and women into gendered spheres, the period also brought about ideas of change and progress that had a profound impact on the lives of women. -- C.W./Engl386/UVic/Fall 2012

Chapman, Raymond. //The Victorian Debate: English Literature and Society, 1832-1901//. New York: Basic Books, 1968. Print. Danahay, Martin A. //Gender at Work in Victorian Culture: Literature, Art and Masculinity//. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate, 2005. Print. Furneaux, Holly. "Victorian Sexualities." //Literature Compass// 8.10 (2011): 767-775. Print. Hager, Kelly. “Chipping Away at Coverture: The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857.” //BRANCH: Britain, Representation and Nineteenth-Century History//. Ed. Dino Franco Felluga. Extension of Romanticism and Victorianism on the Net. Web. November 26 2012. Johnson, Wendell Stacy. //Sex and Marriage in Victorian Poetry//. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1975. Print Laslett, Barbara, and Johanna Brenner. "Gender and Social Reproduction: Historical Perspectives." //Annual Review of Sociology// 15 (1989): 381-404. Print. Marsh, Jan. "Gender ideology & separate spheres in the 19th century" Victoria and Albert Museum. N.p., n.d. Web, unpaginated. 23 Oct. 2012. Ruskin, John. Sesame and Lilies: The Political Economy of Art. London: Collins' Clear-Type Press, 1890. Electronic Source. Parker, Christopher. "Introduction" to //Gender Roles and Sexuality in Victorian Literature//. England: Scolar Press, 1995. Print
 * Works Cited**