Really interesting article, really brings the Victorians to life.
It made me reflect how, in fiction, the dominant modern story is always to emphasize the LACK of autonomy for women in our past, and how they were prevented from having adventures or choice. It’s a true story (and still probably the most vital story for many women in our world) but it also makes it hard to see the past accurately. Your article brings it home how the culture we have today in England and western countries grew slowly - and was already giving women important freedoms and status in the 19th century. The changes have deep roots.
Yeah I had a discussion about Victorian society on an unrelated topic and the other person was completely convinced that 19th century Britain was just a backdrop for everything a n American progressive would consider a vice today, turned up as high as their imagination allows.
India isn’t a monolith - the cultures within India are so varied, and women’s lives would have been equally varied. The source itself mentions Parsi women as enjoying greater freedom.
Child marriage, female seclusion, lack of ability to divorce, no literacy etc wasn’t common among all social groups within the Indian subcontinent. South Indian women usually enjoyed greater amounts of freedom compared to North India.
Exactly - this isn’t limited to the Parsis either. Just take the example of Kerala’s matrilineal society during this period.
The British were so offended by the freedom, power and respect women were receiving that they not only tried to promote their Victorian morality on society, they even ran smear campaigns against those matrilineal values. They called the freedom of women to dissolve marriages as “concubinage”, that only a patriarchal society was a civilised society, that women had lesser rights to property than men, etc.
But of course, only the parts where Indian society were behind Victorian society get talked about - not the parts where Victorian society was behind Indian society.
I read an interesting piece on Kerala societies which put the "freedom, power and respect" that women had into a slightly different context.
Before and during the Victorian period, in Kerala societies "the sole purpose of men was to indulge in warfare, because shedding blood for your own land was considered to be the truest purpose. Since that is where the ‘honour’ was, that is where men went. Family, succession, children and economic resources were left to women to take care of simply because men had different priorities at the time.
There were a multitude of factors that pushed this society into decline, the primary being a shift in the role that men played in the system. When the period of war and conflict ended and the men returned to being members of the mainstream society, marriages became stronger and more monogamous. The upper caste men got ‘modern English education’ which was heavily influenced by the Victorian ‘family values’, where their own culture was accused of being barbaric and uncivilised."
So while it is true that British promoted their morality, it was not only a question of the British being "so offended" by the freedom, power and respect women were receiving.
Some of the matrilineal "values" were not a matriarchal opposite of (or improvement upon) the Victorian ones, just that they were practised by women. There were aspects of the Kerala society which would have been considered wrong to traditional British values, the example you give is the "freedom of women to dissolve marriages". This was simply a manifestation of the non-permanent nature of marriage itself in Kerala society. The ease with which a woman could (and did) dissolve a marriage would have been contrary to the British values of the time even if practised by men.
Kerala women were still restricted by the large family taravad. (Unmarried Victorian women did have certain rights over their own property, and married women did get proprietory rights under the married Women Property Acts 1870 and 1882).
So, while a few women had a far greater degree of autonomy it is not entirely clear to what extent Victorian society was "behind" Indian society.
This seems predictable for a scholar focussed on how, when and why some parts of the world (notably the West) managed over time to unlock the potential and autonomy of women, whilst many other parts of the world did not achieve this in a sustained way - “the great divergence”.
Napoleon thought European women had too much freedom and praised "the East" for properly controlling their women. Is that what you'd prefer to see?
Simple fact is women's rights advanced furthest and fastest in Western countries. That is still true today.
If you think this is too simplistic you are free to argue why Bengali women not being allowed outside the house or to freely choose their husbands was good or fake news.
Frankly, I'm suspicious of the sources. Especially when one says "The doors of the University of London are open equally to men and women." In the late 1800s? That is hard to believe, since there was blatant discrimination everywhere against women into the early 1900s.
On the other hand, I can't see any motivation for her to lie. So I remain conflicted RE her credibility.
You are right to be “suspicious” of sources of course - in the sense that a good historian (or reader) remembers context and the type of source. These sources are prone to exaggeration because the ability of women to go to lectures or get a degree at all (without an automatic gender bar being applied by the institution) is so extraordinary! You cannot read sources without being aware they are written by people with purposes, in this case a kind of gentle propaganda, by someone who is probably unfamiliar with the details and is coming from a radically foreign background . This is not a question of “lies” and whether the author is trying to mislead the reader - it’s just normal inaccuracy and people reporting impressions and second hand news.
The University of London opened special exams to women in 1868. In 1978 it officially gained a supplemental charter to award full degrees to women on equal terms with men.
The University of Oxford) granted women full membership and the right to take degrees in 1920.
These Indian women, in their letter-writing, tried to show how things needed to change their home country, by giving UK examples. A few high caste women from India observed/ visited a number of upper-class women in the UK.
I doubt the Indian ladies met ordinary UK females from the lower classes, who often worked in factories, as domestics, or on farms. Low class women and girls, in those days, did not make it into college and university. And they still form a minority among today's students.
This was fascinating. I really appreciate how you compare gender in all societies not just western ones. Its really neat to see statistics and historical views from india and others non-essential nations as its so rare. Could you also address the rise of anti-equality in the west especially USA. Like Trad wives, women lamenting they cant be stay at home moms, homeschooling, increased religious based restrictions in reinterpretarions of Christianity and the alt right and wanting to restrict abortion, women voting etc
Really interesting article, really brings the Victorians to life.
It made me reflect how, in fiction, the dominant modern story is always to emphasize the LACK of autonomy for women in our past, and how they were prevented from having adventures or choice. It’s a true story (and still probably the most vital story for many women in our world) but it also makes it hard to see the past accurately. Your article brings it home how the culture we have today in England and western countries grew slowly - and was already giving women important freedoms and status in the 19th century. The changes have deep roots.
Yeah I had a discussion about Victorian society on an unrelated topic and the other person was completely convinced that 19th century Britain was just a backdrop for everything a n American progressive would consider a vice today, turned up as high as their imagination allows.
can we pull the roots out already
India isn’t a monolith - the cultures within India are so varied, and women’s lives would have been equally varied. The source itself mentions Parsi women as enjoying greater freedom.
Child marriage, female seclusion, lack of ability to divorce, no literacy etc wasn’t common among all social groups within the Indian subcontinent. South Indian women usually enjoyed greater amounts of freedom compared to North India.
Exactly - this isn’t limited to the Parsis either. Just take the example of Kerala’s matrilineal society during this period.
The British were so offended by the freedom, power and respect women were receiving that they not only tried to promote their Victorian morality on society, they even ran smear campaigns against those matrilineal values. They called the freedom of women to dissolve marriages as “concubinage”, that only a patriarchal society was a civilised society, that women had lesser rights to property than men, etc.
But of course, only the parts where Indian society were behind Victorian society get talked about - not the parts where Victorian society was behind Indian society.
I read an interesting piece on Kerala societies which put the "freedom, power and respect" that women had into a slightly different context.
Before and during the Victorian period, in Kerala societies "the sole purpose of men was to indulge in warfare, because shedding blood for your own land was considered to be the truest purpose. Since that is where the ‘honour’ was, that is where men went. Family, succession, children and economic resources were left to women to take care of simply because men had different priorities at the time.
There were a multitude of factors that pushed this society into decline, the primary being a shift in the role that men played in the system. When the period of war and conflict ended and the men returned to being members of the mainstream society, marriages became stronger and more monogamous. The upper caste men got ‘modern English education’ which was heavily influenced by the Victorian ‘family values’, where their own culture was accused of being barbaric and uncivilised."
So while it is true that British promoted their morality, it was not only a question of the British being "so offended" by the freedom, power and respect women were receiving.
Some of the matrilineal "values" were not a matriarchal opposite of (or improvement upon) the Victorian ones, just that they were practised by women. There were aspects of the Kerala society which would have been considered wrong to traditional British values, the example you give is the "freedom of women to dissolve marriages". This was simply a manifestation of the non-permanent nature of marriage itself in Kerala society. The ease with which a woman could (and did) dissolve a marriage would have been contrary to the British values of the time even if practised by men.
Kerala women were still restricted by the large family taravad. (Unmarried Victorian women did have certain rights over their own property, and married women did get proprietory rights under the married Women Property Acts 1870 and 1882).
So, while a few women had a far greater degree of autonomy it is not entirely clear to what extent Victorian society was "behind" Indian society.
https://feminisminindia.com/2016/09/01/decline-matrilineal-society-kerala/
This is a great companion piece to the Pink Sari Revolution, which is a recent book about women in India still trying to get some of these reforms
I like the art you included
Superbly interesting and thought provoking.
While I enjoy reading your posts, they are also remarkably linear in their narrative (of the West always being praised by their non-Western peers).
This seems predictable for a scholar focussed on how, when and why some parts of the world (notably the West) managed over time to unlock the potential and autonomy of women, whilst many other parts of the world did not achieve this in a sustained way - “the great divergence”.
Napoleon thought European women had too much freedom and praised "the East" for properly controlling their women. Is that what you'd prefer to see?
Simple fact is women's rights advanced furthest and fastest in Western countries. That is still true today.
If you think this is too simplistic you are free to argue why Bengali women not being allowed outside the house or to freely choose their husbands was good or fake news.
Wonderful post, thank you! I don't know what to make of your last graph, compared to this one: https://newsonair.gov.in/womens-employment-rate-in-india-nearly-doubles-since-2017-18-labour-ministry/
Frankly, I'm suspicious of the sources. Especially when one says "The doors of the University of London are open equally to men and women." In the late 1800s? That is hard to believe, since there was blatant discrimination everywhere against women into the early 1900s.
On the other hand, I can't see any motivation for her to lie. So I remain conflicted RE her credibility.
You are right to be “suspicious” of sources of course - in the sense that a good historian (or reader) remembers context and the type of source. These sources are prone to exaggeration because the ability of women to go to lectures or get a degree at all (without an automatic gender bar being applied by the institution) is so extraordinary! You cannot read sources without being aware they are written by people with purposes, in this case a kind of gentle propaganda, by someone who is probably unfamiliar with the details and is coming from a radically foreign background . This is not a question of “lies” and whether the author is trying to mislead the reader - it’s just normal inaccuracy and people reporting impressions and second hand news.
The University of London opened special exams to women in 1868. In 1978 it officially gained a supplemental charter to award full degrees to women on equal terms with men.
The University of Oxford) granted women full membership and the right to take degrees in 1920.
These Indian women, in their letter-writing, tried to show how things needed to change their home country, by giving UK examples. A few high caste women from India observed/ visited a number of upper-class women in the UK.
I doubt the Indian ladies met ordinary UK females from the lower classes, who often worked in factories, as domestics, or on farms. Low class women and girls, in those days, did not make it into college and university. And they still form a minority among today's students.
Thanks Alice. That’s an interesting glimpse into the past. I’ve ways enjoyed these outsiders-looking-in accounts.
This was fascinating. I really appreciate how you compare gender in all societies not just western ones. Its really neat to see statistics and historical views from india and others non-essential nations as its so rare. Could you also address the rise of anti-equality in the west especially USA. Like Trad wives, women lamenting they cant be stay at home moms, homeschooling, increased religious based restrictions in reinterpretarions of Christianity and the alt right and wanting to restrict abortion, women voting etc
So interesting! Thank
you for sharing these important perspectives.
Wow ! Thank you for sharing this.