Do you think Victorian women were oppressed?

Question

Just your thoughts would be interesting... please explain why as well. Thanks.

Answer 1

No. I think that period had much to offer when it comes to the role of women and the society in general. We'd be better served to move back that direction, frankly.

Roles were respected and etiquette observed.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Victorian women were oppressed, so were Victorian men, the golden age of capital oppressed them equally. It was more obvious in the case of women when one considers the middle classes or bourgeoisie, because of the contrast in experience with the idle rich men, do not forget the expectation to die bravely in war(flames of which were often fanned by women with their white feathers etc, sorry just a fact sisters) that was incumbent upon gentlemen .

In the case of the working class there was precious little difference in experience, where there is no material interest starvation and hard labour levels gender difference, history and the world over.

Answer 4

The only Victorian women oppressed were the ones who did not fit into the social sterotypes of the time, and therefore were press-molded into a role they felt uncomfortable with. Obviously, not all women felt that such a role was uncommon or strange; but obviously not all women felt that such a role was necessary or right for them.

Even now, there are women who love being suzi homemaker, while others love being suzi business-shark. To make a homemaker feel she has to be a business woman would be as oppressing as trying to make a businesswoman feel as if she is incomplete and 'not a woman' because she loves being a working woman. Oppression is not a one-way street.

Answer 5

The Victorian era was full of 'rules' of etiquette, suppressed emotion and sexuality, etc. -- probably everyone was oppressed in one way or another. Of course some people were doing it to themselves while others had less control over their circumstances. Upper-class women fall into the middle of this, they had little control over their circumstances, but they also contributed greatly -- although without realising it -- to maintaining this system.

Some of the best 'commentary' on late Victorian 'oppression' are novels that were written on either side of the turn of the century. Kate Chopin's _The Awakening_ and much of E.M. Forster's work deal with the tensions between old Victorian ways and the then-emerging Modern period.

Answer 6

Well...they couldn't vote, they had very few job opportunities, they HAD to marry or else be considered "failures" as women, they HAD to bear children, no, sorry, SONS (once married) or else be considered failures as women, and they could be cast off by their husbands if they failed to bear sons, they could not own property until the latter part of the Victorian Age, (any property they inherited would immediately become their husband's property upon marriage, that is why so many families "entailed" their property, a practice that allowed only the closest male family member to inherit the property of a family, so that a family that had only daughters would not lose their family property, as women who were divorced by their husbands [for not bearing sons] would not get back the property they brought into the marriage, it was still the husband's, by law.) Women's health and medicine were DEPLORABLE, because society did not allow for a woman to be examined, women were diagnosed based solely on the physiology of men, and the biased misconceptions about women's health of the time. The practice of performing hysterectomies was originally done as a means of curing "mental illness"-women who were seen as "hysterical" (hence the word "hysterectomy") were thought be "cured" by removing the "female organs" (the uterus) because it was those organs that caused mental illness in women. Sheesh!! They were considered intellectually inferior, legally inferior, physically inferior, and had no more rights or privileges than that of a child. In fact, legally, they were little better than children. They could be beaten, LEGALLY, by their husband's, if she dared complain about him drinking and gambling HER inheritance away all night, every night. Shall I go on? There is a lot more, but I'm afraid I'll get carpel tunnel.
And as far as them not being oppressed because "they didn't 'think' they were"...would you say that a slave was oppressed even if he had never known any other life? Women KNEW of the double standards that existed against them, and the lack of freedoms and privileges that men enjoyed, but they had no CHOICE. They weren't just "blissfully ignorant" of the way things were, that's why the women's movement was getting into gear then, (although these women were considered "social outcasts" for their efforts). And for those that said "women were more like women SHOULD be, back then," again, they didn't have a CHOICE! Women are NOT naturally, "demure, weak, fainting, empty-headed, blushing, silly creatures who would rather giggle helplessly than offer an opinion," THAT was the "ideal woman" of that era and those are just your (wrong-headed!) expectations, and thank God women are no longer expected to live up to those expectations.

Answer 7

Yes, they were. They weren't allowed to vote, were expected to be housewives, and if they didn't fit society's idea of a "lady" they were looked down upon. Then there was the whole being a virgin issue. They had some serious respect issues back then and I'm so glad that we've come beyond that. Some may think women are still suppressed but when we stop and think about the difference between then and now - it's much more tolerable.

I did love they way they dressed though :)

Answer 8

It is depends at what you view as oppression. I would say they were oppressed if they themselves believed so. If they regarded what was happening as normal and morally acceptable to them then, they were not oppressed. But, according to contemporary interpretations, yes they were oppressed. The key question then becomes what does oppression really mean and who is qualified to call what happened in previous generations as oppression whilst those who existed in that period are not around to speak for themselves? In conclusion, I would argue that it was oppression if we look at it in relation to laws governing current societies.

Answer 9

What we can see today as opression was natural and normal in those times, it was like slavery, many societies didn´t realize the harm they were doing thinking others are different and could be used as animals.
There is a movie "sense and sensibility" or "prejudice and....pride" something like that, talks about victorian woman, how divorce was seen, and the way they thought.

Answer 10

of course they were and the simple reason is women were always oppressed in history and thats just that...reason go ask the self righteous egotistical men who believe they are the better gender.
to explain why is to look at male psychology which i dare not do for fear of what i may find there.....lol......no i know this is a serious question and if you may want, look at my profile and look at my answers to questions having to do with women and women's rights...its just tooo much to explain in one shot...i cant say one thing for fear of leaving out another equally significant so it would take way too long for me to explain to you here!

Answer 11

let me think a moment....
No rights
No votes
No careers
No future (without a husband)
viewed as legal slaves since once married a woman had to obey her husband as lord and master, he even had the right to beat her if she displeased him (that law was still on the books in the US as far as I can tell up to about 15 years ago as long as the stick she was beaten with was no bigger that the ruling judges thumb....The rule of thumb)

Yeah, I'd say we were oppressed and still are in many ways.
Its getting better though, slowly.