Talk:Women in the Victorian era

message: What sources are there, if any? ><
--Chezzie 14:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments

message: This sentence is misleading:  "The poorer the neighbourhood, the higher the rents."  The next sentence is correct, and explains that slum rents were 4 to 10 times greater than West End rents *per foot*.  (This is supported by an accurate citation to "The Blackest Streets.")  Rents were not actually higher in the slums: rather, total rental income was higher - as the cited book explains, so many people were crammed together in small spaces that landlords could achieve higher rental income per foot than from West End properties.  But as written, someone might think that rents were literally lower in nicer parts of town, which is incorrect.        — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.91.52 (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Working Class Domestic Life

message: The line: "The legal rights of married women were similar to those of children; they could not vote or sue or even own property."
This is incorrect, they actually could own property. It was just legally absorbed by their husbands when they married.
Someone fix this please.
i know this sounds like totally dumb, but all these comments are really negative!!! just wanted 2 add, thanks to everyone who wrote accurate pieces of informations onto this site, it really helped me with my homework!!!! love chloe x  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.7.233 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate

message: "and he had the right to enforce this by a writ of habeas corpus" in Limited rights of married women section.
Now this is amusing for 3 reasons 
1) habeas corpus is a writ relating to detained persons
2) "bring me my wifes body" invokes some fairly interesting sexual connotations most of which are not entirely in line with the alleged Victorian sacred temple concept - the remainder of the article makes this very funny.
3) its very hard to enforce ones will on somebody merely by having their physical presence.
I think what the author was intending on suggesting was that a husband could apply for an enforcement of "conjugal rights" - although IIRC so could a wife and the concept of "restoration of conjugal rights" still exists in some jurisdictions Paul Hjul 07:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An absurdity that just bounced out

message: This article doesn't strike me as having a particularly neutral POV.
"they were to be treated as saints, but saints that had no legal rights."
Niall Jackson 13:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I removed the line:
"can you actually change anything on this site? that's whack."
as it it is unrelated to the topic and a form of petty vandalism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Hjul (talk • contribs) 08:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly Vandalism 

message: This article only explores Victorian women (especially sexuality) on the most superfical level, and seems to rely more on pre-concieved stereotypes of Victorian womanhood than actualy historical sources. It talks about sexual repression, but it doesn't even see fit to so much as MENTION Female hysteria, or how "pelvic massage" (read:masturbation) was actually recommended for this. Nor does it mention women in the American West broke several taboos. This an unsourced, simplistic, shallow, POV trainwreck of an article and it desperately needs to be worked on by an expert. Asarelah 17:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article seems only to consider upper-class women.  There was a huge difference between upper-class and lower-class women in Victorian era. I am making edits to enforce this distinction. Roger6r (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is limited

message: The article states, "But while the husband only had to prove his wife's adultery, a woman had to prove her husband had not only committed adultery but also incest, bigamy, cruelty or desertion."
Does the author mean to say that a man could not be divorced unless he was guilty of all five offenses?  This does not seem to be correct.  While I have not examined the statute in question, a more likely answer is that a husband could divorce his wife only for adultery, while a wife could divorce her husband for adultery and also had the additional grounds of incest, bigamy, cruelty, or desertion.
John Paul Parks (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume it's intended to say that a woman had to prove adultery AND ALSO one of the additional aggravating factors.  Before ca. 1850, women's rights in England to divorce allowing subsequent remarriage was extremely limited. Churchh (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A man could divorce by proving the adultery of his wife, but a woman had to prove "aggravated adultery" (ie. that her husband had committed adultery AND cruelty). This was the case until 1923 (when the Matrimonial Causes Act 1923 was enacted treating male and female adultery the same). 2A02:2F0F:B106:B800:6524:85B0:2812:60C4 (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, IP. It sounds like you're quite knowledgeable about this. I think this article would be much better if you tried to improve it directly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate Grounds for Divorce?

message: Someone (preferably with knowledge of Victorian laws) should rewrite this section, it is a mess. What relevance do medieval beliefs have here? The unequal treatment of women and men when it came to adultery is well-known, but is the justification presented true (i.e. do we have legal judgments that mentioned the reasons to do with inheritance of property), or is this an example of modern musings about why people did this or that in the past? Also, in some places courts made laws, in others it was the legislature or a fiat from the monarch - we can't just generalize about courts making laws. And if sex was for procreation only, never for pleasure, what were those 50,000 (or whatever the number) brothels engaged in in Victorian London?
Gsandi (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just this section - the whole article needs to be re-written from start to finish, and it needs someone who can WRITE to overhaul it. My two cents worth...Hohenloh  +  22:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/victorian_britain/women_home/ideals_womanhood_01.shtml is a good source: it's written by Lynn Abrams, who is the Professor of Gender History at Glasgow University, and has written various books and articles on the subject. Also, something needs to be done about the silly vandalism. Currently it's calling Victorian women 'slutfaces', which is just stupid. Alimorag (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women and Sex 

message: Why does this article self-contradict? The abstract and the article contradict each other over the jobs a woman could hold in the Victorian period... this sort of thing should not be happening on Wikipedia where you can edit the article... Aboodoo (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's Work 

message: This article is almost exactly the same as the text found at http://5b-english4us.blogspot.com/2009/01/role-of-women-in-victorian-age.html. I believe that solves the "sources" problem.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunnygal239 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the blog was actually plagiarizing the Wikipedia article, since our text predates the blog post. It's also possible that both this article and the blog post are plagiarizing a third source. Kaldari (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plaigiarism 

message: This article is really more about gender discrimination in the Victorian era. Roger6r (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider changing title 

message: I checked the history of this article and found that in 2005 it had quite a lot of sources (although not as inline cites). The problem is, the article has been vandalised and reverted so many times since then that they disappeared and were never restored. I'll list them below as they may prove useful for sourcing the article in its current state. Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for checking. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I got my mitts on a copy of "Strong-minded Women and Other Lost Voices" cited as a source above from the older version of this article -- so hopefully I can add inline citations to some of the older information that had been in this article. Yayz. OttawaAC (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing sources 

message: its heavily slanted towards making history prove women were victims in this period rather than describing their life. 
key citations are missing, for example the women not being aloud to be educated in certain topics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humblepedant (talk • contribs) 19:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  should be moved to feminism section and removed from others. 

message: The sentence "(the novel is deliberately ambiguous as to whether the encounter was consensual or a rape)" is being repeatedly removed by an IP. I have asked them on their talkpage to give a source here for their edit summary "Tess was raped, there is no ambiguity about it". Bishonen | talk 17:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence repeatedly removed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Women in the Victorian era. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001045152/http://yjhm.yale.edu/essays/eoconnor20070608.htm to http://yjhm.yale.edu/essays/eoconnor20070608.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111009121356/http://www.fff.org/freedom/0300e.asp to http://www.fff.org/freedom/0300e.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001045152/http://yjhm.yale.edu/essays/eoconnor20070608.htm to http://yjhm.yale.edu/essays/eoconnor20070608.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001045152/http://yjhm.yale.edu/essays/eoconnor20070608.htm to http://yjhm.yale.edu/essays/eoconnor20070608.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So, the section on "Victorian morality and sexuality" reads :"Portsmouth Dockyard by James Tissot, 1877. This work is Tissot's revision to his earlier work, The Thames. According to the Tate gallery, it "shocked audiences when it was shown at the Royal Academy in 1876 because of the questionable sexual morals of its characters. This painting was exhibited as a corrective".[29]"
The cited source provides 0 evidence that this was ever the case, though, and looking at the painting itself, it's a tough sell to think that anything in it could be scandalous, even by Victorian standards.
HOWEVER, I think that the author of the cited source perhaps meant to name another of Tissot's works - a piece very similarly titled On The Thames (emphasis mine)
This one I could easily see offending delicate sensibilities. For your reference, I've linked them both - what do you think? 
The referenced piece, The Thames
Tissot's other work, On The Thames
I made a Wikipedia account for the sole purpose of coming here and posting this, so I'm hung up on it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largewatercraft (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Thames by James Tissot - Scandalous? I think not. 

message: I'm unsure of when this article was largely written, or by whom, but the portions on corsetry are outdated or misinformed.
Corsetry, especially when speaking over six decades that straddle massive culture shifts, is a very broad topic that ranges from extreme tight-laced fashion to everyday support for manual labor. Reducing it to a few mentions of "extremely small wastes" and vague mentions of some doctors having criticism is spreading misinformation at best, and actively pushing a discredited narrative for ideological gain at worst. 2604:CA00:138:208D:0:0:87E:CE70 (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated Notions of Fashion and Corsetry 

message: Generally I have no issue with the overall sentiment of the article however I don't think it fits  an  encyclopedia-like style. 
There is a lot of over-exaggerated, abstract and judgmental language. I tried  removing some bits about the lack of battery powered vibrators and unnecessary comparisons to slavery and rewrote some parts of the top section but it still needs a lot of work. Quitw (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added tone tag 

message: — Assignment last updated by Zara33 (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technology