#eatsleepstudysucceed

This essay will examine the debate between the polarised positions of those who upheld and those who challenged the ideology of separate spheres.  The essay will examine differing historians’ viewpoints on the ideology of separate spheres and will consider these in relation to the domains of Industry, Feminism, Politics and the Church.

The concept of separate spheres came around the start of the Industrial Revolution when men would go out and work and women would have to stay indoors and look after the children. The ideal of separate spheres is an important topic because it raises issues of equality and discrimination which are ever current.  In order to explore the issue this essay will draw upon key secondary texts that date from the mid-1980s to the present day to understand where historians stand.

 The first documented occurrence of separate spheres was in the 18th century at the start of the Industrial Revolution and faded out towards the end of the First World War.  With industrialisation came the divide between men and women, which was evident with men going to work and earning money whereas women would be at home doing housework and looking after the children. Emily Davies discusses the differences between men and women and explores the common thinking of the day of how men were meant to be both physically and mentally strong and in control of the environment, whereas women were assumed to be weak and feeble-minded.[1] Davies is openly supportive of the ideology of separate spheres as she identifies a clear divide in both men’s and women’s roles, regarding women to be “Children of God” who should serve their masters, namely, men, with no objection. Davies is clearly upholding the separate spheres ideology because she shows complete bias in stating that women should not be working in the factories. But Davies’s article fails to examine the counter argument that there were women at this time in history who were working in heavy industries, often, in fact, working alongside their male counterparts.  These same women earned money and spent every spare hour they had running their homes in order to see to the needs of their husbands and children.[2]

 Given the patriarchal culture of this period, it is of no surprise that a political movement arose to challenge the ideology that separated men and women.  The first recorded use of “Feminist” came from the word “feminisme” by Charles Fourier in 1933[3]. In Britain, the first sign of feminism came in the 1790s with Mary Astell who wrote extensively on the condition of women, arguing for educational reform in order to improve their lives. Mary Wollstonecraft was another British writer who was regarded as one of the key feminists in Early Modern Britain[4]. Her book “A Vindication of the Rights of Women” (1792) examined how men used their power to justify prejudices in Modern Britain. Wollstonecraft and Astell therefore challenged the ideal of separate spheres because they both highlighted male prejudice and argued that women should be treated as equals. However this point was not accepted by many historians at that time. Sara Ellis proposed that it would be a “selfish desire” to be “standing apart from the many,” and that she would belong to her sisterhood.[5]  Ellis therefore chose to label true women, namely, the sisterhood, as those who were happy to uphold the separate spheres’ ideology and keep to the roles given to them by men.  

 Contrary to the feminist movement, Ruskin, another historian who has spoken out for upholding the separate spheres ideology, argued that a man’s “power is active, progressive and defensive” and that the woman’s “power is for rule, not for battle.” Ruskin made a case for a woman having the right to rule her home, but this should be the extent of her power.  It was not for her to have authority outside the home, and certainly not if she was working in a public place. The British Parliament at this time shared the same view as Ruskin[6].  The British Government was composed of male representatives and therefore disseminated a culture of patriarchy through its legislation.  Rendall, who presents an argument that is against separate spheres, cites Eileen Power, a medieval historian, as having identified separate spheres from far further back in time than industrial Britain.  Power stated that women were not present in medieval politics and, “...does show without power in familial, economic and religious spheres.” However, this approach was criticised for being too sexiest and too prejudiced. Margaret Stacey and Marion Price stated that noble women wielded great power; the sphere of the home was theirs and they would be the “husband’s representative during his absence.” However, both Stacey and Price concur that this is due to the fact that these women all come from high positions and was not due to their sex.[7]  Rendall argues that separate spheres has been an abiding feature of civilised society and was used to keep women from exercising any true power.  She reveals her support of those women who tried to break away from the separate spheres ideology by describing them as having ‘nerve and intelligence’[8]

 What is certain is that British society was governed by powerful institutions that were firmly in favour of separate spheres with the Church being the last bastion against female emancipation.  Mill states that all causes, social and even natural, combine to make it doubtful that a woman should be jointly rebellious towards the power of a man and that “they are so far in a position different from all subject classes, that their masters require something more from them than actual service.”[9] However, Rendall explained that many Christians (mostly Protestants) became driven towards the new Evangelical movement and that many women decided to join to protest against “normal Christianity,” which they saw as promoting this patriarchal order.   Rendall presents the evidence that the Church was not the enemy of women, explaining that for a single mother the Church of England would offer work to help her improve her character and commitment to Christianity to be used for when they would be servants. Both Rendall and Mill discuss how a woman would serve a master, but both approach the subject from different contexts. Mill ‘s approach is from a general background that is in response to Ruskin whilst Rendall’s approach is rooted in a religious context which offers a good insight into the thinking behind the ideology of separate spheres.[10]  

 In conclusion, the historians that I have used in this essay have discussed the ideology of separate spheres from differing viewpoints. All have their own way of approaching and understanding the subject. Davies looks at Industry and how the women were treated, Ellis came from a feminist background, and Ruskin took a more general approach. The most unbiased approach was seen in Mill and Rendall, although there was support of women’s emancipation seen in the language used in Rendall’s writing.  What can be seen as a result of assessing the debate is that ‘separate spheres’ is an ideology that brought polarisation even among historians.

                    Bibliography

·         Emily Davies, ‘Ideals’, in The Higher Education of Women, 1866, Patricia Hollis (ed.) Women in Public, 1850-1900: Documents of the Victorian Women’s Movement (London: Allen & Unwin, 1979), p16-17

·         Sara Ellis, The Daughters of England, 1842, Patricia Hollis (ed.) Women in Public, 1850-1900: Documents of the Victorian Women’s Movement (London: Allen & Unwin, 1979), p15-16

·         J. Ruskin, ‘Of Queens’ Gardens’, Sesame and Lilies, Patricia Hollis (ed.) Women in Public, 1850-1900: Documents of the Victorian Women’s Movement (London: Allen & Unwin, 1979), p16

·         J.S. Mill, The Subjection of Women, 1869, Patricia Hollis (ed.) Women in Public, 1850-1900: Documents of the Victorian Women’s Movement (London: Allen & Unwin, 1979), p17

·         Stacey. M and Price. M, Tavistock Publications Ltd, London, 1981

·         Jane Rendall, The Origins of Modern Feminism: Women in Britain, France and the United States, 1780-1860, (The Macmillan Press LTD, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire) 1985

[1] Emily Davies, ‘Ideals’, in The Higher Education of Women, 1866, Patricia Hollis, 1979

[2] Ltd* Emily Davies, ‘Ideals’, in The Higher Education of Women, 1866, Patricia Hollis, 1979

[3] Rendell, 1985

[4] Rendell, 1985

[5] Sara Ellis, The Daughters of England, 1842, Patricia Hollis, 1979

[6] J. Ruskin, ‘Of Queens’ Gardens’, Sesame and Lilies, Patricia Hollis, 1979

[7] Stacey. M and Price. M, 1981

[8] Rendell, 1985, p.33.

[9] J.S. Mill, The Subjection of Women, 1869, Patricia Hollis, 1979

Hi! Thanks so much for saying so. These are only a few of my favorite studyblrs, but I really have to set up a blogroll or something. (Though as my main blog’s a filmblr it’d be half full of Tarantino blogs.)

oh thank you! it’s not too late for you either! 

reaganbuttah said: Good job!! I’m happy for you :) 👍🏼

replied to your post

“May 14th, 2015”

Good luck! <33