a working marriage. Dickens used multiple instances of abuse to show how common it was, and made these characters despicable to show how ridiculous these societal flaws were, to give provide a point of view on victims of abuse otherwise ignored by the majority of society.
Women’s roles in the Victorian marriage were to be subordinate to men, as well as suiting the husband’s advantage and will.
Women were made to serve their husbands, no matter how incredulous the task. This caused for domestic abuse to become normalized in society, and overlooked as a legal offence. Women were regarded in the Victorian era as perfect beings, when they were not able to live up to said expectations, they were punished, making them trivial in importance to society once they had fallen victim because they no longer upheld Victorian family values.
Domestic violence within a Victorian household can be traced back to the belief that women are to be submissive to their husbands in order to keep happiness in the marriage. These crimes were swept under the rug to keep order in towns, and to save face for families. Domestic violence wasn’t made completely illegal in the United Kingdom until 2004, and so the violence in families has been aided by the lack of consequences. Professor Clive Emsley, who teaches at Open University and is the President of the International Association for the History of Crime and Criminal Justice, writes of a violence tolerant …show more content…
society.
“Domestic violence rarely came before the courts. It tended to be committed in the private sphere of the home; among some working-class communities it continued to have a degree of tolerance, while amongst other classes the publicising of such behaviour, even, perhaps especially, in the courts, would have been regarded as bringing a family's reputation into disrepute.” (Crime and the Victorians, par. 6)
This text shows that people, as a society, believed it was more virtuous to hide the victimization in families than to fix the problem. The silencing of victims only continues the cycle of abuse, and most likely bred more violence. If a richer class victim had reported the violence against them they would have most likely been shamed for such actions. The point that legal matters regarding domestic violence was especially ridiculed shows the inherent problem with women’s roles in society. Women were expected to be quiet and submissive to the men controlling them. In the book Inside the Victorian Home by Judith Flanders, nominee for British Book Awards History Book of the Year, tells how the woman was seen in the household during the Victorian era. “In spite of this uncomfortable reality [working women], the hierarchy of authority was undisputed: God gave his authority to man, man ruled woman, and woman ruled her household-both children and servants-through the delegated authority she received from man.” (Flanders 13) Clearly men were seen to be the rulers of the household, and the wife to be his servant, acting below him. This power dynamic allows for abuse because anyone seemingly below men, especially women, were meant to be subservient, and therefore would be punished if disobedient. Men knew what power they had in the household, and they might even use children as leverage in the marriage. While reviewing the book Marital Violence: An English Family History, 1660–1857 by Elizabeth Foyster, Professor Gail Savage explains a key reason women would stay in abusive relationships.
“Children could act as witnesses; they also might try to protect their mother or call for help. Foyster shows that the use of children as pawns in struggles between their estranged parents is not a contemporary innovation. In this period, however, the legal rights of fathers over the custody of their children gave husbands an especially powerful weapon, and wives might stay in violent marriages rather than give up their children.” Women, as expressed previously, were only given power over their children, and so to have them taken away would leave a woman completely powerless. The loss of children would also damage the reputation of the family, mainly focusing on the mother. However, in this situation children were granted the power, a change in the dynamic, which proves to be more dangerous for them as well. Victorian men believed that their wives were to be subjected to punishment if they did not follow orders. The superiority of men was proven not only in their own homes, but to discipline women outside of their marriage as well, although it was more frowned upon. Helena Wojtczak, writer of British Women’s Emancipation Since the Renaissance, who has a degree in social sciences, as well as social history, writes: “Lord Lovaine 'could not comprehend the distinction between a man who beat his own wife, and a man who beat another man's wife'. Viscount Palmerston said he did not believe that 'a man was more entitled to commit these injuries upon his own wife, than upon another man's wife. On the contrary, he thought that it was a greater offence. His own wife was more entitled to expect protection, and another man's wife had her own husband to guard her from injury.” (Wojtczak par 1)
To beat another man’s wife was to show superiority over the man in that house, and to disrespect the wife, however it was acceptable for men to beat their own wives. The husband was expected to protect and discipline his wife to his own ability. The word, “entitled,” shows that this behavior was normalized and expected. The Victorian woman was made to be subservient to her husband, as well as other men. Despite this behavior being considered normal, or even rightful, it obviously took a toll on the mental stability of the wife. Wojtczak continues to explain common circumstances of victims.
“ [Case files of the 1800’s] The victims were often described as sober, industrious women struggling to be as good wives and others as possible in appalling circumstances. Some wives were drunk at the time, some were habitual drunkards, no doubt having turned to drink to erase their misery. Court reports show that women of all ages were beaten: the youngest I saw was 16, the oldest 66. The vast majority were mothers of small children and it was commonly reported that the wife had a baby in her arms at the time of the assault. Men who were brutal to their wives were invariably also brutal to their children.” (Wojtczak par 7)
The man of the house usually had no concern for the safety of their children, let alone the safety of their wife. Women would turn to alcohol, further getting them in trouble. The age range shows little regard for mental maturity, and the ability to understand why they were being punished. The same men beating their wives also beat their children, to showcase power and to establish dominance over the entire household. Domestic violence, in this time period, stems from the sense of hyper-masculinity, and the need to show strength over the female sex. As a general statement, Wojtczack opens the article with a harrowing truth, “During the 1800s wife beating was extremely common and only caused outrage if it was exceptionally brutal or endangered life. There was a widespread belief among ordinary people, male and female, that it was every man's 'right' to beat his wife so long as it was to 'correct her' if she did anything to annoy or upset him or refused to obey his orders” (Wojtczack par 1)
This right to physically batter a woman shows how toxic the domestic views of the Victorian era were. Women were objects, to be used at the man’s advantage, and this power was not well regulated. There was no acceptable legal interference until it was a potentially fatal problem, which explains Dickens’ dramatic take on the domestic violence in Great Expectations. Women were regarded in the Victorian era as perfect beings, when they were not able to live up to said expectations, they were punished, making them trivial in importance to society once they had fallen victim. Women lived as stepping stools for their husbands, as well as being seen as superfluous, they had be controlled by men in their life. Charles Dickens uses the abuse within the common marriage to explain his stance on domestic violence, using two mirroring situations, in which both of the abusers are killed to warn abusers in the environment around them.
.
In his novel Great Expectations, Charles Dickens shows the common abuse of women during the time period using his femme fatale character, Estella as a victim. Estella has married a haughty man named Drummle, who due to his arrogant nature seems a good fit for Estella. Despite the similar personalities, Estella is extremely unhappy in this marriage, and soon separates from him. Pip is relaying information he has heard after having an emotional conversation with Bitty, in which he is asked if he still thinks of Estella. “ I had heard of her as leading a most unhappy life, and as being separated from her husband, who had used her with great cruelty, and who had become quite renowned as a compound of pride, avarice, brutality, and meanness. (Dickens 436) Estella was always extremely independent, and it would be extremely likely that Drummle was not able to assert his dominance over her. Estella was raised to be a heartbreaker by Miss Havisham, and was not prepared for the reality of marriage at the time. Drummle used her cruelly, implying that he physically abused her. This deeply upset Estella, as she is later described as losing happiness in her eyes. Estella has returned to the Havisham house, which is a shadow of its former glory, consisting of a garden wall, ivy, and mist. The brutality of her marriage affected the pride she once held, and it is personified in her physical manner. She is quite gentle, a stark contrast to the supercilious girl she once was. She admits
this to Pip, in the same location she once refused to acknowledge him.
"I am greatly changed. I wonder you know me."
The freshness of her beauty was indeed gone, but its indescribable majesty and its indescribable charm remained. Those attractions in it, I had seen before; what I had never seen before, was the saddened, softened light of the once proud eyes; what I had never felt before was the friendly touch of the once insensible hand.” (Dickens 436)
Dickens may have used the repeated location to show the parallel to the childhood of Pip and Estella, in which she has become vulnerable, yet Pip is still entranced by her beauty. Estella has been broken, and the purpose she once served has been taken from her. Due to this she now longs for the one person who cared for her deeply. The touch of the hand may reference back to the instance of Estella making fun of Pips callused hands, and calling him common. The abuse Estella suffered softened her, and eventually made her a submissive person. This shows that Dickens believes that women should be complacent to the actions of their husbands, and the fall of a femme fatale shows that he does not approve of strength in women.
In Great Expectations, Charles Dickens uses the character Mrs. Joe to show the ridiculous nature of abuse within a marriage. Choosing to have a woman abuse her family is satirical in nature as that was rarely the case within marriages, and made this character seem outlandish for the time. Mrs. Joe abuses both her husband and her little brother who she has been made to take care of. Pip had came home from the cemetery visiting his parents in the first instance of child abuse, as he walks in Joe Gargery informs him of his sisters state.
"Mrs. Joe has been out a dozen times, looking for you, Pip. And she's out now, making it a baker's dozen." "Is she?" "Yes, Pip," said Joe; "and what's worse, she's got Tickler with her." At this dismal intelligence, I twisted the only button on my waistcoat round and round, and looked in great depression at the fire. Tickler was a wax-ended piece of cane, worn smooth by collision with my tickled frame.” (Dickens, 9)
Joe and Pip are anxious awaiting her return, as they already know what will happen. This shows that Mrs. Joe’s anger is a common occurrence. Her cane she uses to beat Pip is named the tickler out of irony, and it is worn down due to how many times she has used it. The chaotic scene shows how Mrs. Joe has made them fearful of her, and reflects the nature of society at the time. Dickens portrayal of Mrs. Joe makes her a character that is despised, and it later killed for her meanness. This was used to show how we should treat male abusers. Throughout the novel her own abuser Orlick, who attacked her maliciously, and declared he did it because she was so abrasive, torments Mrs. Joe. She begins to sympathize with her abuser, and calls for him everyday. This may have been used to show how abuse victims during that time stayed with their abusers and found their abuse normal, and even expected. Pip is informed of the true nature of the violation of his sister by the attacker himself. “Old Orlick’s a going to tell you something. It was you as you did for your shrew sister.”(Dickens, 426) Orlick attacks Mrs. Joe due to her being a virago, and of course the misfortune Pip has caused. Her abuse reached past her family and affected those she had no real control of. Her reign was a tyranny, and her violence was the only tactic she had to keep people in line. This reflects the attitude in the Victorian Era because of the need to prove dominance over your spouse. Mrs. Joe has a desire to rule over anyone in her path and her superiority leads her to the grave. Dickens shows that violence, cruelty, and spite lead to an ultimate demise between two forcefully abusive characters, Mrs. Joe, and Drummle.