Thursday, September 16, 2010

A Woman's Role In the Mid 19th Century

During the mid 19th century, women had no means of support and had to depend on the men in their families in order to sustain. Unfortunately, their dependency for financial support and shelter left them with no rights, thus they were considered property. A woman’s education was very limited, and only the upper class were able to be educated on such things as learning French, playing the piano, drawing, and sometimes Geography. Through this form of education, it prepared a woman for a role as mistress of a home or governess. A governess role did not provide a modest pay, which would leave her dependent on her master (yes, I did say master; that word makes me think of slavery) for pay; if he paid her at all. Due to the fact that she lived in his home and ate his food, I guess it was up to him to pay her or not, which would reinforce his control over her.

The book Jane Eyre is set in the mid 19th century. When Jane was a student at Lowood School, her education was very limited; she was only taught the basic things (to keep her suppressed).  Because females had such minute roles, there was no need for them to be given the same education as males, so unfortunately, Jane’s education only consist of sewing, drawing, learning French, and Geography, which would make it difficult for her to become independent; thus, leaving her to remain in the role of a dependent woman. Regretfully, she did not have any male family members that offered her financial support. So upon her departure from Lowood School, she took the role of a governess, a common role in that era, under the watchful eyes of Mr. Rochester, whom owned Thornfield Manor. She would often refer to him as her—master. Due to the fact that Jane had never been a governess before, she was not aware that there would be other duties she would have to perform besides her position as Adela’s teacher. When her governess position exceeded beyond teaching, which some evenings it did, she would be summonsed to keep company with, her master, Mr. Rochester (when the word master is used it signifies the control he had over her). Even though there were times she did not want to socialize with him, Jane—had to obey, for submissiveness was yet another role of a women in the mid 19th century. Although she was the governess, her position reigned over the other servants, and she had no authority of her own. Since Jane was an inexperience young woman of 19, she would fall prey to many of the antics the 40 year old Mr. Rochester performed, and she was compelled to submit to them without any questions (women in this era had no voice of their own). Given that Adela did not have a mother; Jane’s governess position eventually had to coincide with that of a surrogate mother, which was also common back then.

I believe that Charlotte Bronte, the author of Jane Eyre, wanted to convey to her readers that even though the setting of her book was in the mid 19th century and women were subservient to man, Jane struggled to crossed that line; she knew how to underhandedly assert her mind and her beliefs, which clearly was not the role of a woman of that time. She had an independent nature, and did not want to be controlled. But as fate should have it, she became wealthy; Mr. Rochester needed her and depended on her. Fortunately, she did not have to live the social life of society, but lived the life she wanted to live far away at Ferndean finding happiness as a married woman free to express herself, as well as feeling equal to her husband.

2 comments:

  1. I completely agree with you about what the author was trying to convey in the book. The fact that Jane was so open minded and how she was forced to conform to Mr. Rochester and his demands showed that women in the 19th century had absolutely zero freedom. They had set roles in which they had to play, and woman who crossed the line was, I would imagine, punished. Jane, throughout the entire book, struggles with her ideas and struggles to not conform to Mr. Rochester, but she is forced to because he is her ‘master’ (Which, by the way, I loved how you showed that her calling him ‘master’ was another way to sow his dominance over her.)

    Jane was an independent woman, and a hard working one at that. So of course, it would only be expected that she got something for that by the end of the book. Ironic how the tables turn on Mr. Rochester and that he is forced to depend on her instead (How’s that for switching gender roles!). Sadly, I don’t this would have happened in the 19th century, had she become wealthy. She still would have been under the thumb of her husband (I think, I’m not entirely sure). But that’s why its fiction, right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. “A governess role did not provide a modest pay, which would leave her dependent on her master (yes, I did say master; that word makes me think of slavery) for pay; if he paid her at all.”
    I agree with what you are saying, but instead of just “thinking” about slavery, I think there are a lot of legitimate parallels. Firstly, the fact that women were equated and treated to property seems like a pretty obvious parallel to me. (Well the women were possibly considered a step above property if one wanted to argue that case.) Second, they could not, despite whatever achievements in their life, ever be held to the same regard as their male counterpart, or in slaves’ cases, their master.

    “Because females had such minute roles, there was no need for them to be given the same education as males”
    I would have to disagree with this statement. I think that women held, and still hold, significant roles in society, they just weren’t given enough credit and merit for it back then, possibly even still today.

    “Charlotte Bronte, the author of Jane Eyre, wanted to convey to her readers that even though the setting of her book was in the mid 19th century and women were subservient to man, Jane struggled to crossed that line; she knew how to underhandedly assert her mind and her beliefs, which clearly was not the role of a woman of that time.”
    The only problem I have with this assertion is the word “underhandedly.” I know what you are trying to say, and I agree with it completely, but “underhandedly” has a negative connotation that detracts/brings down Bronte’s character. But I’m definitely nitpicking on an otherwise good point.
    Overall, I thought it was a nice piece and very thoughtful.

    ReplyDelete