The Prospect Before Her

[kutsuwamushi]

I'm currently reading The Prospect Before Her by Olwen Hufton, a hefty piece of historical non-fiction on the lives of women in western Europe from 1500-1800. The scope is so broad that the author can hardly give any aspect of their lives the attention that they deserve, but it's very interesting so far.

There are some common threads, some expected and some not:

1. The need to prepare for marriage economically, i.e. by amassing a dowry - which many women wouldn't get from their families. They had to work and save up for it, frequently for a period of 12-15 years.

2. The types of jobs that women could get didn't dictate that they stay home. In fact, staying at home and working for the family could be disadvantageous, because the family didn't pay wages. Young women were surprisingly mobile! They often had to leave home to seek work as domestic servants or workers in allowable trades/proto-industries.

I'm not even a quarter of a way through the book yet, but the second point has gotten me thinking about the excuses people make for most protagonists in fantasy or historical fiction being men. One excuse is that it's harder to get a woman involved in a plot since her job is to stay at home. But that's not at all what life was like for most women during this time period.

And man, when your future hinges on your ability to save up a dowry, that's a pretty strong motivation to get involved in some shit.

Comments

[author_by_night]

Ooh, weekend reading ahoy!

But that's not at all what life was like for most women during this time period.

This doesn't surprise me terribly, since I've noticed that in my genealogy research. Although it would be more surprising to me if this was pre-industrialization, since I always got the impression that pre-factory work/secretarial work*, a woman's options were limited, unless she lived in an urban enough area that she could keep up a shop or something. Has the book specified a difference? Or is this a general misconception?

*Apparently being a secretary in the Victorian era was the equivalent of being a female astronaut in the 1970's. Which is ironic considering by the 1970's, being a secretary had... not the best associations. (Exhibit A, Mad Men.)

In any case, I think it was largely women who could "afford" to stay home who were often expected to. From what I remember of my women's lit classes, that was the irony - the higher along in the food chain a woman was, the more tethered she was to societal expectations. At least that's the impression I got from the class.


They had to work and save up for it, frequently for a period of 12-15 years.

Oh, wow. I didn't even think of that.

ut the second point has gotten me thinking about the excuses people make for most protagonists in fantasy or historical fiction being men.

I can see it IF the author is making a point, and the women fight their way to the center stage. I've seen it done that way before. Otherwise, I don't really buy that excuse. It's fantasy.

[kutsuwamushi]

I always got the impression that pre-factory work/secretarial work*, a woman's options were limited

They were and the author makes the point that this was a hard task requiring luck and good health; some women never saved enough, which hurt their prospects. The wages were awful and the options were indeed limited.

Before widespread industrialization there were some smaller industries, but the biggest source of jobs seems to have been domestic work. The girl would rely on social networks to find placement, which would likely be with a family in a different town. There were also things like being a dairy maid.

This is mostly working class girls, as any family with enough money would prefer their daughter stay home under close watch, as attitudes towards "gadding" women were extremely harsh. But working class girls were most girls.

[silverflight8]

12-15 years!!! And then presumably your husband gets control of the money, ugh.

[kutsuwamushi]

It depends on the time period and the size of the dowry. The system was undoubtedly oppressive, but it was rooted in the idea that the husband and wife were becoming a joint economic unit and had to set up shop together, so to speak. A poorer woman's dowry would likely be used to purchase farm animals or household goods - or in some cases contribute to her husband's mastership in a trade, which would support them both.

The husband expected to continue making money after marriage, while the woman did not; her husband was supposed to support her financially, and male wages reflected this. Women's wages did not, and all work available to her paid extremely poorly. So, the woman's economic contribution came mostly at the beginning of the marriage, even if she continued to make some side money.

Poorer women might save 12-15 years to buy some pots and pans and a bed. Which is horrifying. They were so poorly paid - they basically exploited them as much as possible without the system completely breaking down.