LaletiaRajah Wilson

One may infer that Dickens may have been attempting to acknowledge the birth of female freedom, due to the industrial revolution, by way of the female characters' actions within Great Expectations. Considering that he creates such verbal execution performed by many of the female characters within the novel suggests that women were usually treated as equals, this not being the case. By allowing these women to be verbally and physically abusive, Dickens may have been presenting the distorted idea toward female criminals and violent women.

Violence appeared to be a gendered act usually resulting in male over female dominance during the nineteenth century (D'Cruse 21). Within the novel, Dickens creates situations in which the female characters have the upper hand. Since the Victorians considered crime to be "unnatural in women" it is paradoxical that Great Expectations contains so many malicious women (Hughes 86). That may be why Dickens chose Mrs. Joe to act as a "violent woman" throughout her character's life (120; ch. 15). As within Great Expectations, the usual targets of violence by women were men, husbands and lovers (Hughes 86). One witnesses male, physical abuse as the young Estalla slaps Pips face (92; ch. 11).

Due to gender role reversals, Mrs. Joe suffers from some need to display a "compulsive masculinity" (Tomes 338), which is evident in her aggressive need to maintain her power over the men in her home. This need for Mrs. Joe to maintain power is expressed by Joe when Pip shares his desire to learn. Joe tells Pip that Mrs. Joe "an't over partial to having scholars on the premises" (63; ch. 7). This unfavorable attitude toward "scholars" leads one back to the violent behaviors performed, served as a disciplinary function, when Mrs. Joe is challenged rather than submitted to. Understanding this reasoning may give one a better understanding into Mrs. Joe. One may infer that Mrs. Joe did not blame herself for the mistreatment of her brother and husband but felt that they brought it on themselves (Tomes 334). Mrs. Joe expressed no regret or guilt after being abusive to Joe and Pip, as most abusers did not.

Although it was typically unusual, due to social acceptability, women like Mrs. Joe who beat and dominated their husbands were subjected to public humiliation as an informal form of popular justice (Clark 188). Although spousal abuse was acceptable as a means of obtaining control, murder was completely unacceptable. Going back to the idea that female crimes were a betrayal of nature, there was an extra twist to murder when the murderer was a woman (Hughes 86). Female murder criminals were stereotyped as Mr. Jaggers' housekeeper: oversexed, insane, hormonally unbalanced or suffering from some biological defect (Hughes 68). As Pip is told to look at Jaggers housekeeper--"you'll see a wild beast tamed"--one notices the suggestion of a biological defect, or hormonal unbalance (195; ch. 24). Pip is also instructed to "keep your eye on it," as if this woman belongs to neither sex nor is she portrayed as human (195; ch. 24).

Murder marked the boundaries of femininity in nineteenth-century culture (Hart 2). Women who were considered incapable of redemption were not determined to be women at all (Hart 2). This may suggest why the housekeeper was refereed to as "it" rather than given a gender. A murderess, also considered a born offender, was determined to be a man in a woman's body (Hart 2). This may suggest why Dickens, through Jaggers, placed so much emphasis on Molly's "power of the wrist" (206; ch. 26). Keeping with the idea of a man in a woman's body Jaggers states that he "never saw stronger . . . in man or woman" (206; ch 26). One may infer that Jaggers is keeping with ideas of his time by suggesting that inside Molly is a man.

At this point in time, attempted murder was a misdemeanor until 1803 and there were no laws against spousal until 1853 (Clark 190; Hughes 86). Although the community had issues about murderesses, juries were reluctant to convict or execute women accused of murder because they felt that women were unable to commit such an act (Hughes 68). This reluctance may explain why Molly was not convicted, aside from "her sleeves being skillfully contrived so her arm had a delicate look" (361; ch. 48). Since female criminals were not treated as morally free and rational acting individuals, it was believed that their actions were the only outlet to their mental instability (Hughes 68, 88).

Although murder was considered an appalling crime, people who were convicted of murder were not placed in an ostracized group (Tomes 329). Women, being considered an inferior sex, were judged differently from men since it was believed that most women did not kill with "calm, premeditative, calculating reflection" (Hart 3). Women, categorized with idiots and minors, often received public sympathy that excused them of murder on the grounds of incompetence or mental instability. It was believed that women were not subject to the conscious will, but were carriers of its power (Hart 2). These ideas suggest that although women no longer had to maintain a docile with a submissive demeanor, they were still held at a highly rigid standard of morality which often excused physical abuse and murder.

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.

Hart, Lynda. "The Victorian Villainess and Patriarchal Unconscious." Literature and Psychology 40 (1994): 1-24.

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.