Men and Jane Austen

So many people seem to believe that Austen lived in a completely male-dominated society, which allowed women no freedom and expected women not to have minds of their own. What's the deal?

Although, admittedly there seems to be an occasional allowance made for a vice in a man, whereas in a woman the same vice would be considered abhorrent, but I always imagined that came from the chivalrous idea of women, which often ends up expecting a great deal more from women than is possible.

True, women didn't wear pants often back then and the system of entails does seem just a little arbitrary, but Austen doesn't seem too upset. If women weren't allowed to think for themselves, where did Jane Austen come from?

Also, what about Austen's view of things? Her heroines always end up getting married, is that just because marriage was the only way for a woman to be comfortably situated? Somehow I doubt it. Her heroes always complement her heroines (Emma needs Mr. Knightley, Catherine needs Mr. Tylney, etc.) so that their weaknesses are their husbands strengths and vice versa. It would seem almost as if (despite never marrying herself) Austen thinks that marriage is and excellent way to grow in character provided you marry the right person.

Bravo Sarie! Your insights, Men and Austen, An Opinion on Mansfield Park, are very welcome. I enjoyed them and hope that you shall keep it up as there is a scarcity of intelligent opinion posted.
Welcome to the Forum.

The intresting thing though is that Austen herself never married, and if she had done so she probaly would not have been able to continue to write, becasue she would have had to take care of the household and eventurally have kids and raise them. She lived off of well to do relatives all of her life.

In fact with the exepction of very rare cases in Austen's time a women had to be married to be finically stable, very few women had income of thier own, at least enough to live comftrbaly. There were few jobs for women, and those that were aviabale were not well paying, and women whom did work were looked down upon.

who exactly was it who brought up the idea that Jane Austen and other 19th c. women writers were feminists? :confused:
maybe writing a novel was a feminist act but that doesn't mean that the content of her novels is feminist in any way? of course, some people tend to mix up "feminism" with "whatever any woman happens to say or do" :p
isn't it funny that the only feminist idea in P&P is expressed by the dim-witted Mrs Bennet when she exclaims how cruel it is to entail one's property away from one's own children? She is ridiculed because she reacts on an emotional level and cannot see the issue of entailment as a purely legal matter. But her comment comes very close to first wave feminism, which was concerned with property rights etc. ???


what's also interesting is that after her father's death Austen herself lived in the kind of (relative) "poverty" that is described as so dreadful in her novels. If she got by alright, why did she paint such a scary picture of this situation in her books?

They may not have been feminist as we see the word today, but a lot of women writers of thier day, did write stories ment to critique and anyalyze the soiecty in which they lived in. As the theme of marrying for love so often appeared in such books, which is not something most women of the day were acutally able to do, and it was not considered a sensable thing to do.

The women did see flaws in the role of women in thier soecity, and used the novel to expresses thier ideas.

Most women did not write about conforimity to thier society, or to support the standard, but to challenge it and expose its faults.

TO use P&P as an example, the concept of Charlotte and Mr. Collins can be viewed as a feminist critique on society. Because of the Colonial Wars, there were a lot more men than women, and because of titles passing only to men, and the restraints on women in society, Charlotte is essentially brought around to "whoring" herself off to a Mr. Collins, who throughout the whole book is laughed at by everyone. Charlotte is reduced to having to suck up to Lady Catherine, and to pretend everything is all right. This is done on purpose, by Austen, and is clearly a feminist statement.

In addition to this, Austen not marrying can be viewed as feminist. Back then there really was no form of birth control, so marriage essentially meant giving birth to perhaps a dozen kids, many of which wouldn't survive long. The fact that she didn't marry, even though she had opportunity (which many women didn't have because of the surplus females in society) shows a feminist independence from the "male security" which was sought after by all women. The opening lines to Pride and Prejudice are satirizing the female objective of marrying for security. Elizabeth's character echoes the author, in the fact that she refuses to marry simply for security, or later for money. That is extremely feminist, being that the society, and even her mother in the novel, expected her not to reject Mr. Collins. Elizabeth is essentially supposed to live unhappily ever after for the security, and wealth that, instead of being inherited, was given to her relative. That too is feminiest. The second marriage, rejecting an even wealthier man, is even more so feminist. It is the concept that she would rather live single, than have all the riches in the world, and betray her sister, and what she believed to be morally right.

There are many feminist themes in these novels. You can't expect a Pre-Victorian author to be writing about 3rd wave feminism.

Well put JBI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

There are many feminist themes in these novels. You can't expect a Pre-Victorian author to be writing about 3rd wave feminism.

---

I don't. but some of my teachers make it sound as if Austen & co were feminists in the contemporary sense of the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

he second marriage, rejecting an even wealthier man, is even more so feminist. It is the concept that she would rather live single, than have all the riches in the world, and betray her sister, and what she believed to be morally right.

---

that's a very good point! I tend to see it more as a matter of class differences and her injured pride (cf. Darcy's clumsy proposal) rather than feminism, but I guess they both interlink in this scene. How convenient that she does marry Darcy for love in the end and he just happens to be rich :D

I wouldn't call Jane Austen a feminist. I think she really described what happened in her society. Charlotte and Mr. Collins were part of it as all the others.
Charlotte married out of desperation because she didn't want for herself the fate society gave to spinsters but I think Jane Austen didn't marry because she was just like her characters. She needed to find that kind of man, that kind of love and if she couldn't find it, it was better to remain single. Even for her at that period of time.