What was the Victorian Era's Ideal Woman? Analysis of John Ruskin’s ‘Of Queens' Gardens’ (1865)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июл 2024
- Analysis of how John Ruskin describes the Victorian era’s ideal of womanhood in his lecture ‘Of Queens' Gardens’, from ‘Sesame and Lilies’ (1865), in keeping with the figure of the Angel in the House. This text is a mid-19th century statement on women’s role, duties, & (supposedly) innate characteristics. John Ruskin’s ‘Of Queens' Gardens’ (in ‘Sesame and Lilies’) is an exemplar of repressive & oppressive Victorian Age notions of the female gender, ‘ideal’ femininity, & womanhood as symbol: or, in the words of Coventry Patmore, ‘The Angel in the House’ (1954-62).
The lecture analyses the section of John Ruskin’s lecture ‘Of Queens' Gardens’ from ‘Sesame and Lilies’ that considers the “separate characters” of Man and Woman, focusing particularly on Ruskin’s use of binaries, in order to illustrate what the Ideal Woman/Wife was considered to be in Victorian era England/Britain, & what Victorian society assumed a woman’s role to be (esp. within marriage). How was a woman to be an Angel in the House? I outline 8 qualities that comprise the Victorian era ideal of womanhood-but this list is by no means comprehensive or exhaustive!
If you’d like to support the channel, you can here
www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_...
Follow me on Twitter: / droctaviacox
CLOSE READING CLASSIC LITERATURE
#DrOctaviaCox
#UnfamiliarReadings
#CloseReadingClassicLiterature
FOR MORE LITERARY ANALYSIS see my ‘Close Reading Classic Literature’ playlist
• CLOSE READING CLASSIC ...
KEYWORDS
english literature analysis
victorian women
john ruskin
of queens gardens
john ruskin of queens gardens
victorian era woman
victorian era women
the angel in the house
women in 19th century
sesame and lilies
john ruskin sesame and lilies
ruskin sesame and lilies
victorian ideal woman
women in victorian england
women in victorian age
women in victorian society
women in victorian England
gender roles in the victorian era
victorian gender roles
womens role in victorian era
gender roles in the 19th century
womens roles in the 19th century
womens role in marriage in the 19th century
the ideal victorian woman
victorian era ideal woman
victorian womanhood
women in victorian Britain
ideals of womanhood in victorian britain
english literature analysis
victorian women
john ruskin
of queens gardens
john ruskin of queens gardens
victorian era woman
victorian era women
the angel in the house
women in 19th century
sesame and lilies
john ruskin sesame and lilies
ruskin sesame and lilies
victorian ideal woman
women in victorian england
women in victorian age
women in victorian society
women in victorian England
gender roles in the victorian era
victorian gender roles
womens role in victorian era
gender roles in the 19th century
womens roles in the 19th century
womens role in marriage in the 19th century
the ideal victorian woman
victorian era ideal woman
victorian womanhood
women in victorian Britain
ideals of womanhood in victorian britain
english literature analysis
victorian women
john ruskin
of queens gardens
john ruskin of queens gardens
victorian era woman
victorian era women
the angel in the house
women in 19th century
sesame and lilies
john ruskin sesame and lilies
ruskin sesame and lilies
victorian ideal woman
women in victorian england
women in victorian age
women in victorian society
women in victorian England
gender roles in the victorian era
victorian gender roles
womens role in victorian era
gender roles in the 19th century
womens roles in the 19th century
womens role in marriage in the 19th century
the ideal victorian woman
victorian era ideal woman
victorian womanhood
women in victorian Britain
ideals of womanhood in victorian britain
english literature analysis
victorian women
john ruskin
of queens gardens
john ruskin of queens gardens
victorian era woman
victorian era women
the angel in the house
women in 19th century
sesame and lilies
john ruskin sesame and lilies
ruskin sesame and lilies
victorian ideal woman
women in victorian england
women in victorian age
women in victorian society
women in victorian England
gender roles in the victorian era
victorian gender roles
womens role in victorian era
gender roles in the 19th century
womens roles in the 19th century
womens role in marriage in the 19th century
the ideal victorian woman
victorian era ideal woman
victorian womanhood
women in victorian Britain
ideals of womanhood in victorian britain
english literature analysis
victorian women
john ruskin
of queens gardens
john ruskin of queens gardens
victorian era woman
victorian era women
the angel in the house
women in 19th century
sesame and lilies
john ruskin sesame and lilies
ruskin sesame and lilies
victorian ideal woman
women in victorian england
women in victorian age
women in victorian society
women in victorian England
gender roles in the victorian era
victorian gender roles
womens role victorian era
19th century gender roles
womens roles in the 19th century
If you like the work I do, then you can support it here:
www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=D8LSKGJP2NL4N
Thank you very much indeed for watching my channel.
"Her great function is Praise." Dead stare by Dr. Cox. 😆
Has anything changed?
I can't imagine anything more narcissistic than Ruskin.
I was looking away at the moment and I **felt** that!
it was an awesome moment! Words were unnecessary...
"I am no longer surprised at your knowing only six accomplished women. I rather wonder now at your knowing any." Wrong era, but the thread of the expectation of these qualities is not limited to just the one era.
I apologize for the inappropriate time, and intent, but it just reminds me of ,"run mad as often as you like , but do not faint"
Well that's a truth universally acknowledged
Wow! Poor Effie - no wonder she left him! I'm glad she managed to find someone who seems to have appreciated her as a real woman. A particularly infuriating aspect is that having identified 'perfection' as a female attribute, it actually gives full licence to men - through those binary opposites - to be imperfect. Talk about double standards! Ruskin was probably something of an outlier in the extremity of his position, but I imagine this kind of thinking would have been quite widespread.
Thanks, as always, for such a fascinating lecture!
It's my pleasure, Sue. And that's a really excellent point you make about the ascribing of 'perfection' to 'Woman' (especially 'perfection' in very limited terms) implicitly giving 'Man' the greater freedom of 'imperfection'.
Yes, that’s what I was thinking. He was one twisted guy. Yikes.
I’m totally into the Cult of Domesticity (did my master’s thesis on the topic), but Ruskin and really almost all his peers, were utterly screwed up. The entire Madonna/Whore thing seems to be codified in this era.
@AnMal 01 oh, it's definitely still present. Romance, as a genre really pushes the idea that women can change men through love--Angel of the House 2.0. In schools, women are taught that their bodies existing in public is a distraction to men and therefore need to be curated to be less "problematic". There are so many more examples.
But he packed it so the failure of his marriage was her fault. She allowed the evil in the house. Not that he failed to protect her; defend her.
@@TheNicolevertone It’s a dangerous trope because that sort of thinking can persuade people to stay in abusive relationships because they think they can change or ‘save’ the partner.
The reference to Ophelia in both Ruskin's and Scott's texts is interesting in that it alludes to a dead woman who'd apparently lost her mind, yet seems to embody a major part of this ideal, as a static and inanimate figure, no longer an active (or rather, reactive) character: "...from her fair and unpolluted flesh may violets spring...a ministering angel shall my sister be..." (Hamlet V, i).
Ophelia was a common justification of the enforcing of the "private sphere". Ophelia transgressed, was unprotected in the public sphere, and therefore went mad. Nevermind that she was both fictional and written by a man. This trope of mental fragility was often tied to women in the Victorian Era. Mad women were visually signified by Ophelia--photographed (without consent), distraught, with streaming hair and flowers. It's also a proponent of the Spiritualist movement: women's greater sensitivity to the spirit world was also a sign of their mental weakness and the flip side of madness. All part if a distrust of women being public (which Spiritualism created opportunities from them to be in a highly performative way).
It’s so interesting what you say about how these ideals have still carried into today. For example, in terms of women vs. failure, I’ve often observed growing up boys are allowed to fail and try again as often as they need, whereas girls are taught to fear failure and are therefore cautious of trying new things in case they don’t get it right the first time and feel ashamed to try again. I found it affected me a lot in school when I was young and my dad had to work really hard to encourage me to try things again and ignore the pressures of that perfectionist attitude.
This is fantastic! As a historian of the same time period, I really appreciate your literary interpretation.
Wow, thank you! - That's a very lovely compliment.
It's amazing to me how the same words in different contexts mean totally different things and feel totally different. Having one's husband say, "My darling, you are my home! If the stars were my roof and glow worms my fire, I would still find myself at home if you were there!" feels romantic and lovely. Having Ruskin turn home into a burden that women carry with them feels stultifying.
All credit to Dr Cox for not screaming in rage while analyzing Ruskin's absurd views on Woman. They accord very well with his views on the ideal child; I wonder if he was ever challenged to support his theories?
It is interesting to hear how much the ideation of woman has managed to live on in our current culture in the ideas that woman must always be soft. The Christian Right even promotes the whole idea of self denial in service to others. It ain’t gone by a long shot.
Except self denial is required of males as well, even to the point of denying sexual contact, including no marriage.
So you're telling me Victorian society was extremely sexist? 😏 I remember Cracked After Hours had this one episode where the group (3 men & 1 woman) are discussing where in history they would take a time machine. The men go on and on while the woman gets more and more pissed. When it finally gets to her, she challenges them to come up with one time period that would not be horrible for her, as a woman. They can't. That stuck with me. Though a silly skit, it's so true that there has been no place safe or tolerable to be a woman. The closest we get is now, but only within certain subcultures in certain countries.
Never satisfied.are we
@@stevenlight5006 Which time period would you want to be a woman in?
@@stevenlight5006 I mean... Why SHOULD women be satisfied with anything less than the same rights and liberties that men enjoy? Of course they won't, and to suggest they should is in itself a sign of prejudice. Of course this is not to say that men don't face challenges and obstacles of their own, especially men of lower economic status - it's just that usually their gender is not an extra obstacle they have to deal with on top of everything else, like it often is with women, who are still to this day assumed by many to be less suitable for positions of power and top tier jobs, or even to make decisions about their own health and life, simply because they are women (example of the last: I've never heard of a man having any issue with getting a vasectomy if he doesn't want children. But women who want to have their tubes tied are routinely refused because "they'll change their mind" or "what if their future husband wants kids". Is this fair to you? If yes - why? If not - why do you wonder that women are not satisfied?).
@@Cat_Woods I think he was saying that we have come a long way and now is good. I don't think that women are at any disadvantage anymore either. They have as much power as a man does to decide their own futures and incomes. Gender based violence is a scourge but the fact is that far more men are murdered, commit suicide etc.
Most countries except those where traditional religious values dictate otherwise and, even there there are women within those cultures who don't see their lives as anything other than the way they're meant to be. I think Western women make the mistake of thinking their way of thinking is the only way of thinking.
I find it incomprehensible that “feminism”-the idea that women should have the same opportunities, choices, and freedoms as men-is still somehow controversial in 2021. Not “women must behave like men.” Not “you must reject traditionally feminine behaviors.” Just “you may choose what is right for you.” How. . . radical.
Couldn't agree more. Where I live in, women criticised horribly because they want kids and a husband. They are accused of being 'girly', 'weak', 'brainwashed' by hardcore feminists. Hey, if it is what she wants for herself, who are we to judge. Feminism is deeply misunderstood even by women of 2021. It is not about what you want from life. It is about being able to 'choose' what you want.
Times change people not so much
@@fridakahlo4225 think ," the persuite of happiness"
Feminism has changed. It is now anti-male, insists on invading every male space, looks down on women who choose to stay home with their kids, and is actually starting to have a detrimental effect on society in general and women in particular.
The only reason it’s controversial is because its opponents twist it (either by subconscious bias or deliberately to turn people against it) to sound completely different to what it is at its core: Equal rights and opportunities, free from prejudice and discrimination based on sex or gender alone.
Basically they are afraid feminism means women will treat men like men have treated women.
Harriet Beecher Stowe's 1851 novel Uncle Tom's Cabin draws on this "angel in the house" ideal as part of her rhetoric against slavery in ways I think are fascinating. First, she applied the ideal to black enslaved women, a group of women otherwise exempted from this ideal. (Rough work is ok for black women, I guess?) By establishing black women as women, she also establishes how slavery inherently violated these ideals, thus attacking slavery while keeping within the confines of respectable culture. Second, Stowe presents outward concerns as very much the concern of women. Couples who don't discuss things like their finances are criticized in comparison with those who do. And if women are supposed to spread their moral influence, shouldn't they be concerned about the plight of fugitive slaves? Elizabeth Cady Stanton also used similar rhetoric to argue several steps further that women should be able to vote and run for office. If women are so moral, shouldn't we want their moral influence in public life? I think these are fascinating uses of the victorian ideal.
But a woman's use of basic reasoning and common sense probably fell on deaf ears 🙄
Except now we're had decades in which women have had power and they've proved no more moral,kind and caring than men . In the UK where I am,we had our first woman prime minister. She was moral and she cared,for some,but she set in train a course of changes that would result in the situation we have now. A woman Dido Harding,due to her high birth family and by marriage connections was put in charge of TalkTalk and the company collapsed,their customer base was hacked etc then following this disaster she was put in charge of Track and Trace which was a total failure I'm glad to say.
A woman was appointed to run the Post Office,the UK postal service. In her 10 years in power numerous honest hard working post masters and mistresses were jailed and a lot took their own life due to a faulty computer program that even when warned about she didnt bother to have looked into. People died. And for 20 years Cressida Dick,what a stupid,ridiculous name,was the increasingly ignored and out of touch with her own workforce head of the London police force,the Met. We had women running all these key services and they just brought death and mayhem.
@@AM-tk2pk 😂😂😂😂
Did Ruskin intend for the comparison to work both ways? Essentially, women praise. Essentially, men require praise. Women create a refuge. Men require a refuge. Women are illuminators. Men require illumination. Men come across as essentially needy. Not that I expect Ruskin's account to be logically consistent.
If we think about the spheres that women and men were predominantly moving (the house vs the public), that actually was what he said. Whether he meant to or not. Men got 'ruined' by the outside and women had to... fix that by being those perfect 'Angels in the house'. Which makes the whole string of ideas even more infuriating.
@@jenka3119 I am having trouble sussing Ruskin's notion of masculinity. Of course, as a yank I am heir to a different mythology of masculinity. So, when I read Ruskin I can't picture John Wayne. I get more a picture of Jim Anderson in "Father Knows Best" (I don't know an English analog).
@@delhatton John Wayne's actually a good example to apply to Ruskin. His roles in Westerns are the active masculine protecting the passive feminine trope. While movie roles are not indicative of a person's personality books and other documentation note he chose screen roles based on his understanding of himself, which actually led to him refusing roles he felt compromised this view.
His views of his wives and women can be tracked back to Ruskin as well eg he liked women to be passive, understated in dress and monitored his language and topics under discussion around women (eg no dirty language or off colour content). Being a "gentleman" definitely has its roots in Ruskin eg ensuring women aren't exposed to the outside world by protectinng them.
@@SusanLH Good points. But... I wasn't thinking of John Wayne the man but of the masculine ideal presented in his "western" oeuvre. That was not clear. My bad. The mythology of the American "west" in the 19th and 20th centuries was a part of what I think of as the American mythology of masculinity. Perhaps a significant part. John Wayne played males who did not require praise, a refuge, or illumination, i.e., a woman. See, for example, Ethan Edwards in "The Searchers". But we also have Matt Dillon in "Gunsmoke". The "man with no name" in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". etc. Domesticity was no part of their world view . Getting married and "settling down" was maybe something for the far distant future if they survived long enough to put their guns away. So, a part of the American mythology of masculinity was the ideal of a man who did not need women for anything more than physical gratification. I wonder if there are English analogs. But I also referred to Jim Anderson, a character in the TV show "Father Knows Best." The hard working hubby/provider who comes home to his pipe, slippers, and a good home-cooked meal. Which is also a part of the American mythology of masculinity. It also seems to be closer to Ruskin. My point is that Ruskin's notion of masculinity is as myopic a his notion of femininity.
Right. Who's supposed to be the weaker sex? 🤔
I've never read this before but it outlines and describes perfectly the hideous stereotypes and divisions that characterise the Victorian treatment of women and gender. I have never wanted to punch Ruskin more than I do today!
Someone I love to hate.
An HOUR of your content?!? We are truly blessed!!!!
Ah the Victorians. Barely five minutes in and I already want to… have words
Well, my thought is that Effie Gray dodged a bullet…
Very interesting. Sheds a whole new light on novels like Madam Bovary. I understand that it’s a French novel, but ideas and ideals spread from country to country and the failings of Emma Bovary beautifully reflect the points outlined in your dissection of Ruskin. Wonderful stuff
Chilling. A text this regressive might soon be handed out by justices of the peace in Texas. I first took in his assertion of "sweet ordering" I kind of pictured it woman's only permitted outside errand, a trip to the confectionery. Wow, just wow. As I said about your lecture of England 1819, it's too current for comfort.
You seem strong and intelligent.by your comment s .many are not.
@@stevenlight5006 Kind of you to say. I'm generally fairly self a conscious about posting comments to literature professors. I often feel the least well-read person on these kinds of threads. That Dr. Cox seems intentionally at making her videos relevant to current events, I feel more at ease weighing in.
Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House deals with these ideas and ideals very well.
Yes ! We think of Ibsen today as a
whiskery old fogey. ..But nothing could be more wrong. His plays were explosive when first performed. ! And still can be. How it came about that a middle class
middle aged male from a comparitive backwater like Norway produced such devastating indictment of the culture is a great mystery. And , of course , next door to Strindberg !!
Thank you for your lectures! It's like a college course I actually want to take, and it's free. Always well done!
Yes it's great and free! Thank you. I've learned things I didn't know after years of studying the texts
I can't help thinking of Lydgate's idea of marriage and looking at how this was distorted in Rosamond. My other thought was, no wonder men spent so many evenings at their clubs.
Fantastic lecture, I enjoyed it greatly! My two main thoughts were
a) women are still socialized to keep the peace (i.e. feel responsible for others‘ emotions), as described both in the original meaning of ‚emotional labor‘ as in the wide extension the term has received since.
b) it‘s interesting that Ruskin wrote this in 1870 - but the ideas were clearly pervasive much earler. I had massive flashbacks to a parade of Dickens’ heroines while you were reading the text, particularly Agnes Wickfield, of course. Ruskin could have been describing her, though David Copperfield was published in 1849!
Thanks for mentioning Agnes, my mind was screaming her name from the moment I heard 'the angel in the house'.
I remember reading sth. about interpreting such historic "advisory" texts, namely: one has to pay attention to what is said and what is not said (in Norbert Elias perhaps? - can't remember): What is NOT said is that which was taken as "normal" and "natural" at the time. What IS said, however, points to the things that were not, or no more, normal, hence already contested. - Reading Ruskin's text in this light lets it appear more counter-factual, and as a defense against the steadily growing claim for women's rights, and the actual change in their roles taking place.
Truly wonderful channel. A really wonderful supplement to my own education. I talk about "angel in the house" concept all the time in my conversation. It's truly amazing how many people aren't aware how this trope influences women even today!
21:48 Wow, just wow!! It's one thing to know that was basically the attitude then, it's another thing entirely to see it in black and white!! I'm mega impressed you managed to deliver that little 'gem' without it sticking in your throat!!
I really appreciate your videos. Thanks for another good one
A couple of pointers.
Victoria as the ruler was more a figurehead, and the wife as the ruler of the home was to be the same kind of figurehead. Always beautiful, perfect, soft, and peaceful.
The woman wasn't to CHOOSE the winner but to CROWN the winner.
She is the organizer, the cleaner, the one who sees the timetable is perfect and the household works like a machine, the trains run in perfect time, the children are always tidy and quiet and pleasing, the servants invisible, she is the perfect butler.
What is the worst here is NOT that Ruskin wrote the book, it's that we have people TODAY who think he was absolutely right.
So now we have households in which the female is too liberated and intelligent and above doing cooking and cleaning and housework so she lies on the sofa watching tv all day and her young husband after a hard day's work that pays the bills has to cook the evening meal,put the kids to bed,clean the house,etc both my brother and my cousin had that in the 1980s in their first marriages. And oh yeah..women buy the lie,it's demeaning drudgery to do cooking. You'll get the respect of society by mopping the floor at Tesco. And the stupid baggages bought it. So what happens next. MEN take up cooking,and,WoW,it's amazing,it's Art,give that man a tv series and a book deal.
@@janebaker966 if your "liberated and intelligent female" lies on the sofa watching tv all day and her husband both earns the living and takes care of the household, she indeed is very intelligent. And he is not. The couple should have the rules agreed upon BEFORE marrying, and she should have more ambition than watching the telly. I think your brother and cousin were idiots. Considering that most straight men marry women who are like their mothers, is your mother the one who wears the trousers in your home? Did she expect the children to do what they are told immediately without objections?
It's not demeaning drudgery to do cooking, but it's better to mop the floors at Tesco than be left without any work experience when your husband finds someone prettier and younger and more trainable and obedient partner and leaves you with five kids and no salary.
This was so interesting! Thank you for this maddeningly enlightening talk, Dr. Cox. I must say, it's atrocious how Ruskin took these biblical texts which had nothing to do with the roles of men and women and projected his own mysogeny on them. So disgusting.
Girl ,yes thy comment s tell of your youth
I loved this lecture not only in understanding about the Victorian culture and the light it shines on how ground breaking women’s literature was at that time and that is hard for us to understand in from our perspectives today. However, it also illuminates how much of that thinking still has implications on women’s lives today. I am 49 so thinking about my mother and grandmother’s views on being a woman though more diluted in my mother than my grandmother and minisculely in myself they are still in the milieu. We are slowly leaving that thinking behind but it still has a ways to go. Again wonderful lecture and insight.
Very interesting! All through Ruskin's essay I got the sense of control; woman is "allowed", but permission by implication comes from men. A woman inhabits "his" house, he allows her some autonomy over it, but only under his control. I gather that Ruskin was the child of two very controlling people, possibly with the result of his emasculation and inability to consummate his marriage, and to me this lecture is about his efforts to claw back some control over himself. I wonder how women viewed him? I'd love to have seen him faced with a real-life Jane Eyre.
His unconsummated marriage has really nothing to do with either his intellect nor his masculinity since from what I have read of his works he could go toe to toe with anyone in terms of his sheer knowledge and elegance. He was ready to marry one of his students that never came to pass though
Thank you Dr. Octavia Cox for another wonderful talk. I must thank you for that earlier lecture on aposiopesis, as it helped me to improvise my little play.
The 19th century men's expectation of women in England was, to my surprise, just as bad as in the old China. For example, women were not suppose to be educated but must know how to run a household, never step outside in public, and if seen with any men outside marriage, its her fault, and the guy is forgiven.
It was terrible to be girls and women in china since god knows when.
In the late 19th century, a woman rose to power after her husband Emperor 's dealth, ruled over the men's court in Beijjng, appointed courtiers, and declared war against Victoria 's British Empire, and in contrast to Japan, finished the Qing Dynasty of China into the history books.
The House of Manchus of Qing was especially brutal to girls and women with rules such as physical sacrifise after husband death. So in some ways, she must have felt a revenge upon the House that gave them so much grief and tears.
Yet another video that I wish existed while I was in university, as an elaboration to the ideas and concepts that I was exposed to in getting my in 19th c history.
Fascinating talk, as ever. A reminder of what an extraordinary mixture of genius and stupidity Ruskin offers us. I am consoled by the thought that there must have been many Victorians, men and women, who thought even then that he had literally no idea about how men and women actually interact and can forge a life with each other. There are many household angels in Victorian fiction, but there are also many portrayals of living, breathing and not especially angelic women. I also think it is an interesting experiment to strip out the blinkered sexism from Ruskin’s words and consider what he has to say about the interdependence within any relationship. I think one can tell by the desperate exaltation of the household angel ideal that even he realised that most people were not really living their lives in quite this way.
Honestly, except for the diction this could've been written yesterday and found a wide audience. A bit depressing.
The hypocrisy is remarkable, but both sexes faced - and continue to face - anxiety-inducing societal expectations.
How do you interpret John Ruskin’s representation of women?
Much like you do, dr. Cox: with extreme exasperation ;-)
My first husband was in every respect like Ruskin-even to the point of never consummating the marriage.
This attitude continues today, in many religious environments. I think it's held up as more of an ideal in most cases, but in some it's still an expectation.
Without wanting to diminish the deliberate leveraging of power dynamics/social expectations that was very clearly part of this attitude being pushed... I do also think it's a hilarious coincidence that earlier today, I found a comment discussion between a bunch of literature graduates, talking about the fact that so much men's writing from around this era reads as just absolutely MASSIVE telegraphing of fetishes that the authors are clearly completely unaware they possess. I think it's more in the style of the writing than the content, where sometimes you read something that pushes these ideals, and it's not the ideals themselves but something about the writing that makes you go 'the D/s is strong with this one'.
Ruskin was a very strange man.
Very interesting - and scary, if not surprising! Thank you! It IS infuriating, on so many levels, especially since we are still not quite where we need to be, equality-wise!
I haven't been able to find a copy of Sesame and Lilies, but from Ruskin quotes I've read elsewhere, I have admired some of the ideals of womanhood that he upholds. Ideas like "a true queen makes home around her wherever she goes." It is precisely that "sweet" ordering ("the woman's touch", as more modern society would call it), that makes a place homelike, and not a military barracks. Mere orderliness does not do it.
The expression itself 'the angel in the house' makes me want to burst out of laughter🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 it's ridiculous in so many ways
What Ruskin seemed to approve of on a psychological level was woman as an angelic mother figure ( for her husband) who praises him uncritically and has almost no separate identity. It’s almost as if separation in terms of identity from his actual mother when he was young, has to be ‘ repaired’ or else he feels massively insecure.
A woman must also not exhibit any sexual behaviour that might be considered… wanton. So although she is not angelic or virginal, she’s expected to present, as being close to that probably innocent, young and of course uncritical state, including even when she’s a mother to children. Managing to be the mature peacemaker, be the constant, be perfect like an angel and also provide the security at home and the self esteem her husband requires, whilst also seeming naive and eternally fresh - in the sense of not causing any possible loss of self esteem, or loss of him feeling a loss of conquering, when in the bedroom, is surely an impossible, task. It’s almost an expectation that a woman has to deal with being three people in one, ie mature mother figure, eternally youthful and shy new bride and somewhere within - herself. If even the effort to be all three is rejected, by the husband, it is surely shattering an already shattered identity. If the effects on female mental stress under such circumstances could be measured, it would be very interesting and probably unpleasantly startling !
I think that the insecurity in Ruskin’s perspective is pretty obvious. It’s not, confined to the Victorian era is it. The price of protection from other men can be akin to slavery. Not needing their economic, protection is sometimes resented, in present day society. The insecurity can range from keeping women covered up, to only bubbling resentment.
Angels ? The virgin mother ? To what extent was Ruskin influenced by his religion ? Did his very idealistic views about women change at all when he veered to agnosticism ? ( I don’t know). Has a decline in enthusiasm for religion in some, countries seen an increase in female emancipation ? Is there any measurable correlation ? The beliefs in most religions that the creator of the world is male, seem to fit with the notion that women cannot be creative except in a limited environment. Seems rather over compensatory competing to me, to claim that the Earth etc was created by a being in man’s, image when it’s actually women, who give birth.
As Ruskin’s ideal seems to rely on women being more economically dependent on men, there were as we all know, may women who did, work at that time although mostly in hard manual jobs. So could only reasonably well off men, afford to keep an ‘ angel ‘ ? Was she a status symbol ?
This song came out in the year Ruskin died. ( 1900).
“ She’s only a bird in a gilded cage, a beautiful sight to see.
You may think she’s happy and free from care
She’s not, though she seems to be”.
Thank you for the great video. I really enjoyed your analysis. In my enthusiasm, I’ve strayed far away from the text but it made me think. I have seen quite a few friends’ marriages break up - not because the women are not working in reasonably well paid jobs, not because they aren’t kind and loving, attractive and mostly cheerful, or can’t cook, or whatever ie are completely dependent on another adult but because they were treated almost entirely, as mother figures, who were berated, even when in their early twenties, for not being …a new girlfriend. The efforts to break down their self esteem were considerable. The perfect mother figure doesn’t it seems, have a responsible job, high intelligence and any trace of capability beyond being able to operate a washing machine etc. An irony is that it’s not the females’ salaries that were a problem. Money was acceptable but the capable woman earning it - no, because it affected the mens’ self esteem.
The physical side of the marriages - a mother figure can’t be akin to a much desired girlfriend, apparently. That change can happen not long after a wedding ring is put on her finger. It does not, take years and ‘ Oh she’s let herself go’. Some men, actually look for and find girlfriends but the men stay married, quite often. Not all men, no …of course not and I’m certainly not someone who dislikes, men but Ruskin I think expressed an ongoing problem without realising that he’d done it? The psychology of many, men is still, in line with his. The most successful marriages I’ve seen are those in which the woman are in no paid work, or have part time low paid work, she’s unable to change the fuse in a plug and sometimes - can’t drive a car. Her tasks - to look after the husband, children and house. There are boundaries, eg that the garden, is the man’s territory. The woman can make requests but certainly not get out there and create a vegetable patch. That’s currently a ridiculous description because most men think that two salaries are better than one ? Yes, indeed they might think that and live it. Do they like it ?
If men ( some) don’t have economic therefore total control, a woman cannot, be described as an angel. She often becomes perceived as a competitor. She has failed to be the idealised mother figure, who was the original source of self esteem. No amount of love can compensate. No amount of effort can either. It’s very sad. Independence might bring heartache but the alternative, is that gilded cage and if someone tires of his ‘beautiful bird ‘, I imagine that not having having some good qualifications or skills for the woman to be able to get a well paid enough job to support herself and maybe children too, must be hell.
Ruskin, in ‘ Sesame and Lilies’. “ Speaking broadly, a man should know any language or science he learns, thoroughly - while a woman ought to know the same language or science but only as far as may enable her to sympathise in her husband’s pleasures and in those of his best friends”. I don’t know what Freud might have said about that but my reaction is the male ego as described unintentionally by Ruskin, knows no bounds, if given half a chance. 😆
We read this with such derision. How will people feel when close reading our current texts 100+ years from now? They will probably feel derision, too!
It would be interesting to discuss these ideas in contrast to the 47 novels of Trollope, who had many imperfect, powerful heroines. Or we could go straight to a Freudian analysis of Ruskin in conjunction with his biography. And his wife’s biography.
Yes,I love how Anthony Trollope knew about and depicts real women. Even his demure 17 year olds with downcast eyes in the first chapter soon start displaying hints of feistiness by chapter 3. How about the one sided elopement of Marie Melmotte in The Way We Live Now. What a girl! Far too good for him.
But he was particularly good on older women who he could depict as bossy, opinionated,cruel,funny etc as we all really are. And he got that Spinsters are people too.
“La donna e mobile; qual pium al vento” - is John Ruskin quoting Verdi?
Touche
Rigoletto
Wow! You need to make content about 'Tess of D'urberville' immediately.
Fantastic video, and so infuriating as you say. I took the section around 41:35 to mean it is the wife's responsibility to maintain the perfect home no matter how scant her resources are, i.e. even if all she has are stars above her head and a glow worm at her feet. I can imagine some Victorian patriarch using this part to justify being tight with the housekeeping allowance, or displacing his own feelings of failure for not earning enough (in this heteronormative framework at least).
Have you considered doing an instructional video on Lady Susan?
Yes, definitely - I have plans in the works. Lady Susan is such a fabulous text!
@@DrOctaviaCox I was teaching Lady Susan in my class yesterday. My new idea relates to names. Catherine Vernon#s daughter is also called Catherine. Reginald De Courcy has the same name as his Father. Even Frederica's middle name is Susanna after her Mother. Similar to Sir Thomas Bertram, Lady ( Maria ) Bertram and Frances Bertram ( Fanny Mother ) all have children named after them. We know the manuscript documents are watermarked from at least 1805 but Austen did not utilize names as a tool until her mature novels. This suggests that Lady Susan was revised as late as 1814.
as always: so invigorating to listen to your lectures. I think about how men have feared the dissolution of the family structure - in my view - because of the Industrialism and the big changes in western society at that time. The renewed fear of homosexuality f.ex in the condemnation of Oscar Wilde (in later victorian period) and in racism, here: as the fear of the other. Feelings are being ridiculed, even if they are domesticated to be the feelings of an angel. (hope my english is not too incorrect, I am danish)
It is interesting to me, as a survivor of evangelical Christianity, to see the parallels between this movement and the Victorian era. I didn't make a good evangelical woman and I would not be a good Victorian one either!
Well this horrified me.
Me, too.
I always note that by victorian standard of idealised manhood that he was an unmitigated failure by all standards. He set the ideal man as himself so badly to the extent that the book reads like a better written version teenage self insert fan fiction rather than a serious moral book. Also there is the fact that it is filled with the homoeroticism that was most often used in the Molly houses rather than polite society making the book almost as scandalous as the author driving sales of the short print runs of each edition.
Not very familiar with Ruskin, but that makes a ton of sense. I'm guessing he wasn't very self-aware 🙄
Sesame and Lilies. Even the title is a total giveaway.
Could it be said that Ruskin was, among other things, a misogynist? Ruskin's idealised projections onto women imply that he lived in a self-created world of constant frustration, hateful disappointment, and mental anguish?
Why ignore or pussyfoot around the more blatantly obvious explanation ?? He had an obvious distaste for sexual intercourse with women........Hmmm ?
Was the Victorian Era's image of women a step backwards with regard to previous times?
I think so. I was reading an article published by The Irish TImes that was about the Anglo-Irish writer Maria Edgeworth who was able to support herself by her own writing. The article basically said by 1800, she was a very well known author and while not many people today have read her works, she was far more successful in her time than Jane Austen. The article also cited a number of other women who were published and contrasted it by the 1830's there were few women who had this prominence.
@@mtngrl5859 A successful writer from the mid nineteenth century, Mrs Henry (Ellen) Wood, wrote some of the best female characters I've ever read. She's remarkable for her inclusion of fully human, rounded working class characters, too. I suspect the main reason her work isn't widely read today is its evangelical tone (every situation, every speech, every outcome is larded with elevating Christian messages). In other respects, her work is remarkable, and draws a far more complete picture of Victorian England than any other writer of her time. Unfortunately, her most realistic female characters are minor ones; her heroines are typical Victorian angels in the house.
@@stoverboo Yes, I heard of Mrs. Wood. I was trying to contrast what some " middle class" women were doing in the Victorian World, that Mr. Ruskin had to be aware of. Even in the late Georgian period, there were female painters and sculptors who had positions of importance. Compared to a Mary Shelley, Mrs. Wood at least fit into the acceptable fabric of religious belief.
I wonder if, at the time, it seemed like an advance in its announcing 'women are equal' (hence it was so popular, and seems to have caught on with other women writers), and the danger of 'but polar opposite' was harder to argue against?
Britain influenced the world. Footprints throughout and yes, I feel ideas like these are persistent today, though as you mentioned, not always known by those in control. Yet clearly women were not cowed into submission at all levels of society. My guess is that it was the middle class that followed such things. The elite always did what they wanted; the poor, what they had to do to live. I have this book with the three lectures in it though I have not read it. I appreciate your lecture to better understand in context. As always. Thank you!
Mild, subservient, well monied and fertile about sums it up. Chattel.
Ruskin didn’t care about the fertile part or at least if his wife was going to be fertile she would want to have control over who was hired as a footman.
Our present time tells of the red pill.the bible speaks of women ,there greatness ,power place in history,read for yourself.
@@davidwright7193 😂
57 minutes in: a list of the 8 ideals
Madom please made a video on essay of dramatic poesie by John dryden
(Melanie here) I enjoyed this very much. Of course, I can appreciate the constraint and high expectations that women experienced in Victorian times, as explained in your analysis.
I do think, however, that in the past, the physical anatomy of the sexes were a greater determinant of expectations and perception. A couple examples come to mind. When referring to women subordinating their needs and desires for others, that was much the case. Pregnancy was a mysterious event which may contribute to the "angelic" nature ascribed to her. Due to lack of birth control methods and infertility treatment, a woman could only passively accept the condition of being pregnant or being without a child. With the high incidence of mortality due to childbirth, the concept of a woman being "delicate" would be reinforced. Then without formula, the new mother would, of necessity, be the source of her child's nourishment. Therefore, being pregnant or breastfeeding would and do require the woman to put aside her own wants, needs or desires.
From the spiritual and positive viewpoint, Pope John Paul II expressed the beauty of a woman who is pregnant. He described it as - from early pregnancy, the woman "makes room" for another human being in her body which continues after birth as she "makes room" for another human being in her heart and life. Today, the expectation is that the father would "equally" parent, although, the woman continues to sacrifice physically being pregnant and birthing the child.
As far as men being "active" and in the world, it was a necessity for the men to physically protect a village or country during a siege or war. It is not necessarily "progress," but today, with guns and bombs, the physical strength of an individual is not as needed.
On the topic of home- there was a thought that kept coming to mind. In the past and even when I was growing up, the home was more of a refuge from the cares of the world. Now, with technology, our homes and lives are constantly bombarded with the stresses of the world outside our homes and immediate families. I think with the increase in homesteading, we are seeing the longing of people to have a return to some former ways of living with our immediate families.
Well said indeed and true.
I have, as a queer woman, long held the idea that John Ruskin was gay or asexual. In this essay, he not only depowers women, but desexes them, and does both with an such an extreme aggression that indicates he sees no actual value in women. Misogynistic straight men still value women as sexual objects, but Ruskin cannot seem to conceptualize women as anything but a prop for men, certainly not as people. He wants to grip and minimalize any way in which women have power, because the less they have, the easier it is to not have a wife as his necessary balance. He doesn't even mention motherhood, which is what one usually associates as the Victorian feminine ideal, probably because that involved sex with women.
Well he was divorced on the grounds of non-consummation so I wouldn’t say you are wrong.
Well said
Says the man who fell in love with his wife when she was 12. When he married 8 years later, he was unable to consummate the marriage.
“Interesting if infuriating text to analyze…” 💀💀💀💀💀
35:15 Sounds like T.S. Eliot got some inspiration for The Waste Land here.
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water. Only
There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock)
Though I suppose he'd be more likely to cite the Bible. :)
Listening to Ruskin's thoughts on women (and reading all about his "just no" family dynamic,) really demystifies the catastrophic failure of his marriage.
The ‘mistake’ made might be, it’s a text. It’s not personal, it’s a subjective opinion. It’s his ideal women, which is kind honest. We, years and years and years later, perhaps should not think it’s about us, but about him… hence there’s no need to feel attacked, for it is merely what he deems attractive in a woman…
Wow, so that's what Dr. Cox looks like when she's disgusted. ... just sayin, Jane Austen never made her make that face.
Victim blaming (of women) ... she was asking for it, why was she out at night, look at what she was wearing. The more things change the morethey stay the same.
Super convenient for men 🙄
Ruskin is not who I would take as an authority on gender roles. Particularly not on heteronormative relationships given he was never really involved in one, even though he conned Effie Grey into a sham marriage.
To me this sounds like a misogynistic gay man’s list of the properties possessed by an ideal wife.
His audience wasn't aware of Ruskin's character, of course. You wonder how he would've fared in our culture with instant social media. I picture him writing this influential essay, then getting slammed when they way he treated his wife came out. He would probably still be lauded by some on the religious right.
@@jrpipik some , yes.
I wonder if we might see the idea of women being equivalent to Vesta as a reference to imperialism and empire building as well? The fire of the Vestals was said to represent the continuity of the Roman Empire, and I would not be surprised if Ruskin seeks to make female chastity similarly responsible for the continuation of the British Empire - which I suspect might carry some white supremacist undertones. I'm hardly and expert in the period, but if I'm not mistaken Roman imagery was fairly popular during the Victorian period.
Nothing alike means different topics, notbopposite of a topic or spectrum.so week and strong go out together
He iss strong she is fast and oordinated.
😑 I guess I'm painting my house red now...
But there is a lot of 19th century literature,maybe of the more populist variety that does portray women,a lot of us who dont make Angel standard,very realistically and usually comically. Im thinking of music hall songs like" its a great big shame that the likes of her should put upon the likes of him".
John Ruskin,good on art,venice,even they reckon now,gardens but he was way at the effete end of the refined. He didnt know actual female women had body hair. He was like "matron,take it away". He wasnt representative at all really.
Henry James wrote a novel called 'The Spoils of Poynton" which i always wanted to read because that is a name in my family. I came across this book in a charity shop at last. I honestly think that Mr James had a bet on that he could write a book in which NOTHING happens. He won it. Poynton is a country house. Its antithesis is another country house Waterbeach. The son of the widow of the Poynton house is going to marry the daughter of the owner of Waterbeach. Poynton is old and tasteful and full of art treasures from rennaissance italy. Waterbeach is new and brash,the family there are parvenu and their new house is full of brash,new,machine made stuff. The Poynton lady,the mother,a widow is broke and through the whole book is strugging with anguish at selling up.
She has a young woman as a companion. This young woman Elfrida is quiet,and gentle and polite and fey and the son is attracted to her and at one point in the novel she could have said one word and had him but she doesnt. We never meet the other young woman he is going to marry but its made clear she is sturdy,loud,bossy,opinionated,in fact a total Bridezilla. Now,the odd thing about this very odd book is that at first you think the author is showing us "nice girl" as opposed to "dreadful girl" but after a bit you start to feel that Elfrida is a right wet drip and actually the other one has got a bit of go in her. The book is so subtly written but you realise that the author is actually guiding you this way. Its alnost like a subtle private joke. So what im saying is,a lot of Victorians of all classes even if they paid lip service to ideas of female purity,they knew better really. And the 1970s feminists got it wrong,like they got EVERYTHING wrong. Loads of women worked in the 19th C from fish wives to the wives of Dukes organising balls and parties. It wasnt (just) empty hedonistic fun,it was social networking,it was influencing,it was making deals and ensuring advancement.
I dont think thats nothing.
And as males will never police themselves it is up to females to act as moral policemen,like it or not.
Female sexuality has a value and no one should undersell their own.
John Ruskin's opinion of women is not typical or educated even for his own time. It is not a window into what people of the era thought or believed. The public was shocked by Ruskin's divorce and the reason for it. Clearly in his own time his views of women were out of touch.
i AGREE WITH rUSKINS ASSESSMENT
I grew up a fundamentalist christian, and must ask,
If the redemption and immortality that Ruskin speaks of necessitates sex with a spouse, then what is he speaking of, because that wasn't the way I was taught
yeah, "Praise". Aside all learning, what I'm enjoying most is the unspoken SHADE and internal screaming of yours.
still that is his wife, one personality. Glad fitbworked for them.
Both give and receive, retropocity is good.
Her power is active, she is the creator . He is mediator. She nakes the laws and he polices them.
He faild his own line of thought.
Still more respect than some christians give today.
Transgender royal family
Your Dr. Sam Bailey s, Double.. 😲
Humans are evolving,yes ,then this era you justly tell us of was actuate for it's time I agree with it mostly. And enjoy.
Unfortunately, when Victoria died, the idea of a woman "ruling" anything more than a parakeet died, too.
with all due respect, "f*** that" 😂
His alive
Reading that list at the end you look really angry.. and justifiably so.
It’s relevant to note here how difficult, dysfunctional and traumatic Ruskin’s romantic interactions with women were. His marriage was a disaster!
This was so very interesting - thank you. Makes we want to go back in time and smack a bit*h, to be quite honest 😉
At a time when women would not have survived pregnancy and the rearing of children without protection, the role of man at the time was as the protector. At a time when men had to do such hard physical work just to keep alive and feed their wife and children. a woman's role was as the homekeeper, childminder and as the creator of a space where the men could come home and let go of of their labours and regain energy for the next day's gruelling work.There were no fridges, no freezers, no vacuum cleaners, no female sanitary products, no social security safety net, no child benefits, no free schooling, no medicine of any worth, etc etc. Food would have to be bought and cooked on a daily basis, jobs like washing clothes and cleaning would take hours of hard work (unless one had servants). The role of a middle class woman with children (even with the aid of servants) would have been a full time job. Life was much harder, shorter and more brutal and the roles were vital to survival.
Dude, put down the pipe.
I DON'T WANT YOUR POLITICAL FEMINIST VIEWS. i WANT ONLY HISTOICAL FACTS PLEASE
"women's great function is to praise" 🤢 what a man thing to say. I was on board with his "woman are to rule as men are to battle" I can vibe with that. I think women have a tendency (and a necessity) to cultivate more mental strength and resilience compared with men's tendency to prioritize and cultivate physical strength but guy absolutely lost me at "praise" brother eugh
Additionally, absolutely hilarious that Ruskin thinks the outside world is what causes anxiety in the home 😂 bc I am filling my home with negative and anxious energy at all times just by existing in it.
Dr. Cox dismantles the Victorian patriarchy.
For my part, I never found working in my cubicle as satisfying as teaching my children and tending my home and garden.
I wonder what Dr. Cox thinks of Christopher Lasch’s thoughts about the loss of women as advocates for the vulnerable in society, and how feminism has led to those vulnerable people being more poorly treated in general. Statistically, the more “fulfilled” by education and career women are the more unhappiness they express after the age of forty.
I certainly wouldn’t want a return to the Victorian era’s conception of ideal womanhood, but the denial of physical realities that has become de rigeur hasn’t served us well either. I’m in my mid-sixties and most of my grad school friends are miserable now because they opted for a Candace Bushnell lifestyle of sterility (and seeking perfection in a mate) and financial gain. They spend a lot on therapy and wine. My own daughters got their degrees, married in their early twenties, their children are now teens, and they’re in the workforce again and enjoying a “second wind” as most women their age are burning out and contemplating life alone in retirement sans offspring.
Okay, you can all yell and scream at me now.
Feminism has led to vulnerable people being more poorly treated? Nope. Capitalism has led to vulnerable people being more poorly treated. Ask any disabled person who cut their benef its. Feminists? Nope. Caputalusts. Ask any disabled person who constantly portrays them as useless drains on society. feminists? No, guess again! Ad infinitum.
@@arianbyw3819 I would refer anyone to the fiction (especially the "Johnny Ludlow" short stories) of Mrs Henry Wood, who was an accurate and unapologetic depicter of just how cruel and destructive the capitalism of the nineteenth century was.
@@stoverboo indeed!
Au contraire ,I celebrate your lyfe story bravo
@@arianbyw3819 round and round u go ,speak plainly.
Reads like someone who speaks english as a second language or fake intectual
He wasn’t saying that women were the opposite to men but ‘different’ in a synergetic way. Your views are far too ‘feminist’ in this interpretation and may be considered as far out as the original script.
Men and women "are nothing alike." Ruskin"s words. And clearly he didn't just mean biologically. And while it may be difficult to try to put ourselves in a historical mindset, it's also difficult to believe that anyone took this garbage seriously.
Relax everybody; this guy croaked a long time ago, it's not like he's alive today and wrote this stuff. And even if he was, with all his peculiarities and problems, who could take him seriously?
Why is this infuriating? This is a portrait of The Ideal Woman. An idealisation. An idolisation. As I'm sure there was the Victorian idealisation of the Ideal Man (brave, heroic, wise, gentle and portective towards women and children). Does this mean that every Victorian woman thought all Victorian men were brave, wise, heroic and protective? No, but they *wished* them to be. They *hoped* that the men *strove* to be as much as this ideal as possible. And why not? We all long to have the best of the things we long for in our live partners/father/mothers/siblings/bosses/etc. All Victorian men knew that the women in their lives valued these ideals. Victorian women knew that live could be brutal, and that it was all too easy for an unprotected woman to perish from hardship. They valued men who were, as the Beast in 'Beauty and the Beast', both capable of violence as of gentleness. Who put their capacity for violence in service to protect those they loved. So Victorian men had the ideal of the Ideal Man to strive for as a model for happiness. Victorian women knew that Victorian men valued certain things in women. Things like nurturing behaviour towards him and her children and loyalty towards her spouse. Because what man would enjoy going out in the world to work all day to provide for his wife and children, only to get home to a nagging shrew who neglects to feed their children and cheats on him as soon as his back is turned? When did the idea that women could get away with such appalling selfish and destructive behaviour as constantly berating and undervalueing their spouse and cheating on him take hold in the modern psyche?! When did the idea that it was okay to spit on motherhood take root?! Oh wait, don't answer that.
No, what *I* find infuriating, is this weird and toxic idea that all men are evil. 'Toxic Masculinity', my @rse. And frankly, if you continue to spread that horrid 'ideal' of 'toxic masculinity', then what you'll get are men who will reflect that ideal. Just as the 'ideal' of a 'woman who needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle' and tv series like 'Sex and the City' has produced two generations of young women who sleep around, find that they might actually want to have a husband and children when their biological clock starts ticking, only to find it far harder to date when they are 38 then when they were 23. Keep up the 'masculinity is toxic' mantra, and you'll get toxic men.
Because that is what men and women do; they try to live up to the ideal (whilst full knowing that ideals are things that can never fully be reached, but they're not going for perfection, that's not the purpose of having an ideal).
It was far more than just an ideal though, as it was implemented through their laws and customs.
It’s infuriating because it’s ridiculous and treats both men and women as automatons rather than people with their own talents, interests, and value. There is no room in this concept for a woman who’d be an awesome CEO or a man who’d be an amazing stay-at-home dad, and both exist.
Partnership takes being equals,
And lo! The watchers witness the mantras of the ancients playing out in real time.
Yes, exactly. As William Blackstone explained in his famous _Commentaries on the Laws of England_ in the 18th century (published 1766-70):
"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or
legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is
incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection,
and cover, she performs every thing ... her condition during her marriage is called her 'coverture'."
The law of coverture only began to be slowly eroded with the various Married Women's Property Acts of the 1870s and 1880s.
You do not understand the concepts you are attacking. Consider, who gets to define the “ideal” for each sex? Why would the concept that some stereotypical male traits can be limiting and harmful be equivalent to believing that “all men are evil”? (Hint: It isn’t.). Do you really believe that generations of women have been made promiscuous by a phrase on a t-shirt or the plot of a tv show? Do you actually think that feminism means woman want to “get away with. . . selfish and appalling behavior”? (Another hint: It doesn’t.) If a man berates his spouse or cheats on her, is that a problem? If not, why not? If so, which t-shirt or tv show triggers such bad behavior in men? Who, exactly, is “spitting on motherhood” and how are they doing so? I find your claims to be bizarre, and your anger and fear to be pitiable.
I disagree with these concepts. A women can be completely happy with herself or another woman. On the other hand, this is regarding the 1800s . I like the lifelessness but I feel is diminishing a womens intellect. Woman give birth to creation. We have more power intertwined than any deity. That is my perspective.
You're totally right - a mother is by definition a creator. But he doesn't really mention motherhood ...
Ruskin's thinking about these things was flawed and naive, but i don't think this fair critique. he is misquoted and misinterpreted.
One cannot misquote a text if you are reading it verbatim and as Dr O C. Puts the text on screen you must and or could have read it too and just because you do not agree with her it doesn't mean it's being misinterpreted she's giving her opinion
Can you point out a place where she misquoted or misinterpreted him?
This is frankly boring. So halting in her speech. Observations so commonplace. Is this all Oxford has to offer?