LaletiaRajah J. Wilson
Blurred gender relationships, which arose in the nineteenth century, lead to disputes and violence between the sexes. The result of these blurred relationships led to men assaulting women and occasionally women assaulting men in retaliation. This phenomenon is aptly demonstrated in Charles Dickens' Great Expectations. Due to physical and social domination one would assume that male violence dominated women prior to the nineteenth century. On account of the industrial revolution, female on male violence became more prevalent because women were more omnipresent within society. Women were obtaining jobs and running households. It is commonly acknowledged that during the nineteenth century the rising working class blurred some of the family and social divisions of prior times. Due to the rising middle class and women entering the work place earning their own money, prior family positions were indistinct. The nineteenth-century woman possessed "verbal skills that allowed her to execute her thoughts toward better serving her goals" (Jacobs 64). Although women no longer had to depend wholly on their male partners for survival, they were still viewed as an inferior sex to their male counterparts. These blurred divisions of gender roles often led to dispute and physical abuse.
The industrial revolution caused men to work away from home contrary to prior times. Men were no longer working in the yard on the family farm. Instead they were working long hours in warehouses which allowed women to fully have control at mastering the household. In spite of the fact that women no longer had to be completely submissive and docile, there remained a distorted "master/servant" relationship between the sexes (Jacobs 56). Whereas it was commonly thought to be done discreetly among the upper class to avoid disgrace, embarrassment and scandal, the lower working-classmen were thought to be the most dangerous wife beaters of the era. During the nineteenth century it was typical for women to be beaten with fists, kicked, savaged by bulldogs, or thrown into burning fires by male abusers.
It appears that industrial towns, such as London and Durham, participated in more brutal, atypical forms of female violence. This exceptionally large rate of violence toward women has been suggested to have been caused by situations such as: alcohol, living quarters being too close, and prostitution (Bauer 107). In addition, one must not forget that this traditionally patriarchal society lumped women into the same category as idiots and minors. Along with their religious ideas of chastisement, these drunken, overworked men felt compelled to suggest submission through abuse. These issues, in addition to others, led to the violence between the sexes. As a result, the change of roles of men and women in society brought on the feminist movement.
Many factors encouraged the rise of feminism and the feminist movement. The rise of feminism gave women a greater feeling of autonomy and independence. On account of this greater feeling of individuality and independence, women felt better about their personal accomplishments. This feeling of greater accomplishment led to women being less tolerant of men, especially as it related to male violence against them. Under most circumstances, women were not committing violent crimes to commit violence, they were committing violence in retaliation against the men who abused them, but the opposite is seen in regards to Mrs. Joe.
Through Great Expectations, Dickens has created a grim picture of domestic abuse and murder. Via the characters within the novel, Dickens portrays the plight of women by reenacting and reversing the abuse usually endured by women of the nineteenth century. Dickens uses role reversals when portraying some of the relationships between male and female characters. Within the consciously reversed roles of victim and abuser Dickens illustrates the cruel brutality women endured by men. Great Expectations reflects on the commonness of wife beating and violence against women in England during the Victorian era. Since physical violence between partners was not uncommon in the nineteenth century, most victims were familiar with their wrongdoer. Unlimited amounts of violence took place between people who either lived or worked in the same town with each other (D'Cruse 30). These common displays of violence continued the acceptance of these savage unfeeling attitudes.
Furthermore, physical abuse was seen as one way in which superiors corrected their subordinates. Encouraging the belief that women were property public opinion permitted the physical abuse of women. Therefore beatings were an acceptable means of correction "as long as they were not outrageous" (Clark 191). Beatings were not considered outrageous by the public motto unless the woman was beaten by a man with a "rod thicker than his thumb" or killed (Bauer 103). All else was acceptable and considered to be "domestic chastisement."
This public avocation of violence is ironic since men and women were supposed to be one after marriage. The reference means that those women lost their autonomy, identity, and independence. Bauer suggests that a relationship between a man and his wife was to be closely approximated to that of slaves. Nevertheless a woman's existence, outside of servitude, was suspended upon marriage after which she became a "femme couverte." As Estella's property was seized by Drummle, seen as an inferior, a woman's property, services and children legally became her husband's. Due to the fact that men were responsible for the "misbehavior" of women, men felt privileged with the authority they had to physically correct them. On account of men using their clogs and hobnailed shoes to administer domestic chastisement upon their women, parts of London and Liverpool were called the "kicking districts."
Due to the role reversals of abuser and victim illustrated by Dickens, one passively accepts the cruelty later administered to abusers like Mrs. Joe and Estella as chastisement for their prior acts. The justified acceptance the reader feels upon discovering Mrs. Joe "lying without sense or movement" because "she had been knocked down by a tremendous blow on the back of the head" is the same justification clergymen, law enforcement, and the public felt about violence against women during the nineteenth century (125; ch; 16). One accepts and views this "reasonable chastisement" of Mrs. Joe because one may feel that "she was deserving of her punishment and was not killed." By experiencing these feelings one encounters the same insensitive stupor that was common to nineteenth-century society.
Since violence, from a familiar member, was viewed as a normal disciplinary function, most women were unwilling to prosecute their abuser. Ironically, determining whether a quarrel was a family fight or not made a difference in the way the community responded to the situation. Abuse victims often showed more bravery in fighting off strangers than in fighting their familiar abuser. One woman, persecuting a stranger, told the courts that "he beat me as if he were my husband" (Tomes 337). Men who were not family members less accepted physical abuse.
Help for the abused is suggested to be administered by rank. With the respected working class receiving quick active community protection by community members. This community favored indirect means of controlling violence usually by offering shelter or nursing the victim (Tomes 336). This assistance was only acceptable if the victim was in a jeopardizing situation. People often did not want to get involved in domestic disputes due to: women turning on their ally or the abuser redirecting the assault onto the victim's ally.
It was difficult to receive help from the state because the state only addressed the issues that threaten the social order. It did not see personal relationships between individuals as part of its jurisdiction. These relationships were view as personal contracts because a women was considered to be "delivered to them as their thing, to be used at their pleasure" (Bauer 101). During the nineteenth century the government was interested in punishing crimes protecting the right of property . The courts and Parliament had no desire to deal with violence against women.
There were slight twists that occurred in the nineteenth century due to the changing roles of women in society. With women becoming stronger and more assertive, men became threatened. Men were threatened by the dominance felt as a result of the assertiveness and independence women were gaining. Men began to commit violent acts to not only oppress women but to also defend their superior status.
Laws against assault and battery were ignored and not enforced for the abuser's benefit. Bauer suggests that the English viewed the violence executed upon women as "funny." Although women no longer needed men to support them, they were beaten into submission and had no grounds for divorce. By being indifferent public opinion, religion and law enforcement reinforced violence against women by encouraging the belief that they were inferior to men. These Victorian ideas made a mockery of the institution of marriage and abused the idea of men being the "natural protectors" of women. The guarded prerogatives and distorted relationships between men and women led to critical violence between the sexes during the nineteenth century.
Works Cited
Clark, Ann. "Humanity or Justice? Wifebeating and the Law in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries." Regulating Womenhood Historical Essays on Marriage, Motherhood, and Sexuality. Ed. Carol Smart. London: Routledge, 1992. 187-206.
D'Cruze, Shani. Crimes of Outrage Sex, Violence and Victorian Working Women. DeKalb: Northern Illinois UP, 1988.
Dickens, Charles. Great Expectations. Ed. Janice Carlisle. Boston: Bedford, 1996.
Jacobs, Naomi. "In Praise of the Talking Woman: Gender and Conversation in the Nineteenth Century." Nineteenth Century Contexts 14 (1990): 55-65.
Tomes, Nancy. "A Torrent of Abuse: Crimes of Violence Between Working-Class Men and Women in London, 1840-1875." Journal of Social History 11 (1978) 328-345.