BOME

Ladylike Idleness and Harsh Realities: Women in Pre-Modern London

Introduction

    Although the years leading up to 1848 had seen a dramatic change in many aspects of English life, such as education, business and government, the position of women in society remained very traditional. They were seen as inferior human beings, lacking the rational drive, superior mental faculties and talents of men. In fact, as 1848, and modernity, drew nearer, women were losing the little independence they had, through the devaluation of labor by the industrial revolution and the rise of the largely urbanized middle class.

Middle Class Women and the Drive for Ladylike Idleness

    England was perhaps the first country in which the bourgeois became the leaders of culture as a result from its early industrial revolution. It was in the much-desired single-family housing of London’s suburbs, or in the villas along London’s Regent Street, in which the tastes and attitudes of the ideal women of the early nineteenth century were formulated. For the English middle-class, with its strong desire and pretensions towards entrance to the lauded aristocracy, the perfect wife would present the appearance of a ‘lady’ at all times, doing little work and following closely the fashions of culture. It is of no surprise that it was during this period that the term ‘lady’ shifted its meaning from the female appellation corresponding to lord, to signifying a female gentleman . Suddenly, every woman had to be a lady, with all the cost it entailed.
    The price of lady-dom was twofold. Economically, it placed a large strain upon the family resources. Since it was a mark of shame to have one’s wife or daughters working in the family business, the female half of the family unit could no longer contribute a formerly popular and economically sound source of labor. However, for most British middle class women, society denounced heavy housework as well, closing that avenue of input for the fairer sex. Not only was her work-value lost, but also it became necessary to hire servants and help to replace her former roles. Indeed, the possession of at least one house servant became the benchmark requirement of the middle class. The role of the housewife was now to oversee rather than to do.
    This left many empty hours to be filled. Education was called upon haphazardly to do such, although the practicality of a proper feminine education was slight. As a result of the early entrenchment of middle class values, women in England found it very hard to overcome societal resistance to learned women. Although by 1835 two women had been admitted to the British Astronomical society, and in 1848 Queen’s College was founded as the first school of higher education for women, a Londoner of the nineteenth century, Miss Ellen Clayton, noted that:
"In other countries, they [women vying for higher education] have the prize fairly earned quietly placed in their hands, and can receive it with dignity. In free, unprejudiced, chivalric England, where the race is given to the swift, the battle to the strong, without fear or favour, it is only by slow, laborious degrees that women are winning the right to enter the list at all, and are then received with half-contemptuous indulgence."
Most women, however, were content to remain within the bounds of acceptable studies for females, such as music, drawing, embroidery (but not sewing utilitarian clothing) and acquiring foreign languages. In addition, widespread female literacy helped fuel the popularity of the English novel. By 1800 three quarters of all novel readers were women. Consequently, novel reading became the symbol of feminine laziness and frivolity, even in the works of female authors such as Jane Austen.
    Instead, young ladies were encouraged to spend their energies upon social activities, in hopes of attracting a suitable husband, most often a wealthy man older than them. Although London was widely regarded as a place of laxer morals, the strict English societal code demanded that these girls sequester themselves from most of the bustle of their city, to the point in which attending the theater or the shops alone was to risk one’s reputation. Marriage was the only occupation a middle class daughter could enter, and unfortunately for her, the balance of male to females was not in her favor. Although marriage was the socially recognized female rite of passage for girlhood to adult status, in a legal sense it was the opposite. A single woman over eighteen was considered a feme sole, and had many of the rights of men. As soon as she married, however, she became a feme covert, and had the same rights as wards, lunatics, idiots and outlaws.
    Once married, the bourgeoisie women occupied themselves with children. As a result of their idleness, mothering became a full-time job and unprecedented resources were devoted to it. The number of births in the English peerage increased in the period between 1750 and 1814, and the survival rate of the offspring was improving. For the women unable to conceive, there was little medical hope. Although the male reproductive system had been well documented by the late eighteenth century, it was not until 1835 that the ovum was even discovered, women’s bodies not being a subject of strong interest among the mostly male doctors.
    The image of the lady bourgeoisie began to encompass the role of mother, and lent that function a special importance. Mothers were thought responsibly for the natures of their children—a mother who was too lax or selfish would produce bad apples. She was particularly accountable for the development of her own daughters, and it was up to her to education them in the manner of ladylike idleness and to bring the cycle full circle.

Lower Classes and Harsher Realities

    The popularity of the ladylike persona so beloved by the middle class did not stretch to include women of the lower socio-economic groups, particularly in the cities, where economic status dictated. Rather, out of necessity, these women were required to work the harshest jobs, for little pay, as well as struggle to maintain the family. In London a laboring family could expect to living huddled in a one-room apartment, with no running water, and spend from a quarter to half of their weekly budget on bread alone. They became the center of their families, providing the impetus to remain together, as well as partially breadwinners.
   There were three basic categories of employment for women, particularly low class women: factory work, domestic service and prostitution. Obviously, prostitution, centered mainly in an area of London called Covent Garden , was a last resort, although it probably was the best paying job open for these women. In London many of the female street sellers were lumped in the same category as the ladies of ill repute. Factory work, on the other hand, paid a pittance to women; partially because of the rationalization that women were either supported by their husbands or by their fathers, and did not need extra money. They were almost never appointed to the better paying jobs of managers, and usually were given the most grueling work in the fabric factories. However, the Factory Act of 1833 helped limit the number of hours women and children were able to work, and set in motion the process of labor reforms.
    For all the danger and hardships of working in a factory, those jobs were preferred by many women to that of a domestic servitude. To be a housemaid lacked the modern cache of a factory job—at least in the factory one was part of the modern future—and insured one’s place as the lowest member of a household. The young maid, usually a girl of fifteen or sixteen, was expected to do all the work that her middle class mistress disdained to do. In houses where she was the only servant employed this could mean a daunting amount of work. Maids were expect to lead austere lives, and could be punished if their masters found their behavior reproachful. They were ‘on call’ constantly, and the little vacation they were allowed could be taken away at any moment. If they became seriously ill—not uncommon considered the state of hygiene in London at the time—they were liable to be fired, and turn out onto the street. Old age seldom meant a pension, which few middle class households could afford or were inclined to give, but rather even more intense poverty. Perhaps most dangerous for those young girls, was the possibility of pregnancy, which would lead to immediate dismissal, even if the father was a member of the family.
    Unfortunately, as the nineteenth century aged, the possibility of becoming something other than a maid, a whore or a factory hand decreased. Industrialization undermined the independent craftsman, especially in trades women could break into, such as tailoring. Indeed, in 1841 a census revealed that the average age of a female skilled worker—such as shoemaker or coopers—was rising rapidly—no girls were entering such trades. Women of the lower classes were trapped by industrialization.

Conclusion

    At the dawn of the nineteenth century, at during the period immediately before the rise of modernization, women were split into two increasingly polarized groups. The first, comprising of all women in the middle class and above, were encouraged to emulate the rich ladies of the court, and to distance themselves from any labor. This led to an increase in their free time, which was then occupied by childrearing and light education. These were the women trapped in the gilded birdcage, divorced of any practically value and values. On the other end of the spectrum were the women forced to work grueling hours in order to making enough to attempt to feed their families. The women’s liberation movement had yet to combine these two forceful groups into a cohesive faction to demand better treatment and equal rights. From the point of gender relations, women in 1848 in London were far off from modernity.

Endnotes

1. Bonnie Anderson and Judith Zinsser. A History of Their Own: Women in Europe Vol II (New York; Harper & Row, Publishers, 1988), p. 131.
2. Anderson and Zinsser, p. 132.
3. Bartlett James. Women In All Ages and in All Countries: Women of England (Philadelphia: The Rittenhouse Press, 1907-1908), p. 363.
4. Anderson and Zinsser, p. 139.
5. Francis Sheppard. London: A History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998) p.221
6. Maureen Waller. 1700: Scenes from London Life (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2000), p.31.
7. Anderson and Zinsser, p. 134.
8. Sheppard, p. 221.
9. Anderson and Zinsser, p. 261.
10. Sheppard, p. 248.
11. James, p. 371.
12. James, p. 376.
13. Waller, p. 59.
14. Anderson and Zinsser, p.263.

Bibliography
—Anderson, Bonnie and Zinsser, Judith. A History of Their Own: Women in Europe Vol II. New York; Harper & Row, Publishers, 1988.
—Inwood, Stephen. A History of London. New York: Carrol & Graf Publishers, Inc, 1998.
—James, Bartlett. Women In All Ages and in All Countries: Women of England. Philadelphia: The Rittenhouse Press, 1907-1908.
—Journal of Women’s History. Ed. Lelia J. Rupp. Summer 1999. Journal of Women's History, Inc. 9 March 2002. http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/jowh/
—Sheppard, Francis, London: A History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
—Waller, Maureen. 1700; Scenes from London Life. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2000.

Questions, Comments Problems? Don't Hesitate to contact us: webmaster@kirschnet.com