Vanity Fair Military Wives: Here We Go A Marching
In reading William Thackeray's novel, Vanity Fair, it was very surprising to learn that it was customary for soldiers' wives to follow and accompany their husbands' regiments when they went off to engage in combat. It seems rather odd when Amelia, on her honeymoon, boarded the ship (provided by His Majesty's government) that would take the troop on to Brussels. There is quite a big production as crowds gathered and cheered as the bands played “God Save the King”, while officers waved their hats and the crew rushed about. It did not seem possible that a major battle was going to take place in which many of the men would never again return to London. According to Andrew Uffindell's Women of Waterloo, “… many soldiers were married, but only six or sometimes four in each company were permitted to take their wives with them on active service”. After the men had marched off to fight, the ladies who stayed behind in Brussels “suffered appalling mental tortures as they awaited news of the fate of their loved ones” (Uffindell). After the Battle of Waterloo, many distraught British wives roamed the bloody battlefield in a state that sometimes bordered on madness.
In Godfrey Davies' book, Wellington and His Army, the practice of allowing women to follow after their husbands' regiments goes so far back it is nearly untraceable. The number of women who might go abroad with the army was “unlimited for officers, but limited for men” (Davies 130). The majority of information available is about the wives whose husbands were in the infantry; much less is known about the cavalry and artillery. Soldiers' wives were restricted, or supposed to be restricted, to six per company and these “were chosen by lot on the evening before the regiment left its depot” (130). Approximately, there were twenty or thirty married women per company and each would draw a piece of paper on which was written “To go” or “Not to go”. The ones forced to stay behind were deeply sorrowful.
This does not appear to be the case, however, with the famous ladies of Vanity Fair. What is startling is the general attitude of these British wives during this time of the war. The Duke of Wellington was leading the war against Napoleon and yet the entire party seemed entirely at ease: “…the business of life and living, and the pursuits of pleasure, especially, went on as if no end were to be expected to them, and no enemy in front” (Thackeray 286).
Never dealing with sick soldiers, laundry, or food, Martha and other wives started “social events”. They were used as a distraction from the war and to lift the soldier’s spirits. They organized balls and dinner parties. Alexander Hamilton met his future wife at one of the social events. Prussian General von Steuben declared that her arrival “inspired fortitude”. (General von Steuben, 1775)
There are not many female characters in the novel A Farewell to Arms and it is clear that they in are not equal to men. They are either prostitutes or nurses. The character of Catherine Barkley is subordinate to Henry and would do anything for him. We can see the superiority men have over women throughout time and the character of Catherine Barkley is just one of them.
Barton poses a series of rhetorical questions to the reader (‘did these women quail at the sight of a gun?...did they faint at the blood?’) which may lead a reader to infer that this poem was written to address the males in society. The continuous use of ‘he’ suggests that since it was the men who decided that women would be of no use on the battle field because of their innate weakness and inability to deal with the nature of war, it wsas now the men who needed to realise that women could do more than ‘wait patiently till victory comes’; women had shown that they were capable of much of the same things that men where including staying calm in the face of war and running the home with absolutely no male influence. This view is supported by radical feminist sociologists such as Kate Millett who believe that ‘patriarchy is not ascribed but rather socially created and therefore capable of being challenged and deconstructed’1. Therefore, ‘The Women Who Went to the Field’ can be interpreted as not only a statement about the changing roles of women in society, but, also as a statement for the need for the recognition of
the battlefield; however, after the war women resumed their previous roles, as house wives or jobs in domestic service, etc. (BBC UK)
These were the women who posed as men, so they could fight in the war, however this was not taken lightly. Berkin states that “women whose sex was discovered quickly were more likely to be punished severely, while women who saw combat before their sex was revealed sometimes drew praise”(60). For example, Margaret Corbin’s behavior was seen as nontraditional back then. Her husband was apart of the army and Margaret wanted to be by his side. She dressed in men’s clothing and at the heat of the moments stepped in for him when he got injured. Women were meant to stay at the house to cook or clean, not to fight in wars. Now, thanks to women like Margaret Corbin, women are fighting in wars overseas and allowed to be apart of the military or army without punishment. Women now have the right to be apart of any profession they choose and even have the same roles and responsibilities as
Many women decided not to stay at home and, rather, accompany their husbands or male relatives with the army. They "traveled with the army to sew, nurse, and wash clothes (Volo 170)." Again the women did the dirty work to ensure the men were always relatively ready for battle. The women that traveled along provided cle...
Together, both articles focus on the role that motherhood plays in the military. To begin, Vuic’s main purpose for this article was to present a chronological study of how the army struggled to incorporate new changes for wives and mothers during the Vietnam War. The Army Nurse Corps only wanted single women with no dependants, but they had to change their policies during the Vietnam War because women were marrying younger and wanted to have children. The Army Nurse Corps could not afford to discharge their nurses on the basis of marriage and motherhood. Vuic looks at how the Army had to incorporate changes because gender roles at the time were changing and had to be reflected in their policies of marriage policies, motherhood and pregnancy policies, birth control, and abortion regulations.
In her novel Good Wives Laurel Thatcher Ulrich explores the roles women played in northern New England throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. In her exploration she describes both the idealized and realized roles that were filled by New England women. Ulrich categorizes the books into three parts, each part named for a biblical female who represents traits that aligned with New England expectations for women. Ulrich emphasizes that women were expected to fill many roles at once, “A married woman in early New England was simultaneously a housewife, a deputy husband, a consort, a mother, a mistress, a neighbor, and a Christian. On the war-torn frontier she might also become a heroine” (pg 9). Ulrich maintained the stance that none of these roles could occur in isolation and dedicated the remainder of Good Wives to the study of how those many roles would be fulfilled.
... ones son was the same view that was placed upon the mother. If a young man was uninterested, or refused to go to war his views were thought to be ones rubbed of onto him from his mother, and indefinitely a negative connotation would be carried around with her name. Masculinity is promoted within the home as most mothers “realize the need for [their sons to] sacrifice in service to the nation” in order to spread patriotism. The role of women within the war efforts was very important seeing as “in making a soldier the women must make a man and in making a man she conversely creates a soldier”. Because of the common gender stereotypes a mother as well most women generally promote bravery, strength and masculinity within the day to day lives of the men they know. These characteristics are easily transferrable to the ones needed to face danger and battle overseas.
During the American Revolution, many women were directly affected by the fighting since their father or brothers or husband or sons were off fighting. This meant that the women often had to take full responsibility for the family farm or business. More and more women became "deputy husbands" and represented the family in legal or commercial transactions. In some instances, as the fighting came close to their lands, women even had to take up arms to defend their person or property when the occasion demanded. Several women in Groton, Massachussetts, put on their husbands' clothing, armed themselves with muskets and pitchforks and defended the Nashua River Bridge. They captured a notoriou...
From the story's first sentence, upon the introduction of two women of "ripe but well-cared-for middle age," it becomes clear that stereotypes are at issue (Wharton 1116). This mild description evokes immediate images of demure and supportive wives, their husbands' wards. Neither woman is without her "handsomely mounted black handbag," and it is not until several paragraphs into the piece that Mrs. Slade and Mrs. Ansley even acquire first names (1117). Thus, without even disclosing any of the ladies' thoughts to the reader, Wharton has already revealed a great deal of their personal worlds. They live in a society which expects women to act largely as background figures, thoroughly engaged with furthering their husbands' careers and the constant struggle to remain pretty. Indeed, little else is desired or even tolerated3/4and Grace Ansley and Alida Slade appear, at first glance, to conform to this image perfectly.
In 1905, Howells published "Editha". It told of a woman who wanted to idealize her fiancι, George. She found a way by forcing him to go to war while he was against it. She felt as if her future husband had to be worthy of her love and to deserve her, or to be her hero. I find this silly but interesting because is this how most women thought back then--to make their loved ones worthy? I seriously doubt it, but I'm sure a few were like that. "Editha" includes one of Howells's themes of ordinary, common folk. He says, "To see realistically is to meet the world honestly; to see romantically is to deceive and to be deceived" (McQuade 349).
According to Mr. Dorans’ lecture on women “How Racist were the Greeks and Romans?”, he emphasized with such high mortality rates, females were expected to have from 6 to 9 children, and with each child, she was expected to nurse for up two years. So from the moment a baby is born, to the time they can actually take care of themselves, the child would have to be physically attached to the mom for most of the time, as Mr. Doran explained. With that said, it’s no wonder females were not really acknowledged to do anything else, because they spent most of their time with their children, in addition to caring for the household and working in the fields. If females wanted to join the military they would have to abandon their motherly roles and devote their time to training. More less if they even wanted any time to themselves they would have to hire a nursemaid to care for their children, since there would be at least a minimum of 6 children to look after. But the fact that only elite could afford nursemaids, and the majority of females could, not, most found no time. Even though people would see this as sexist, females found respect and societal status through raising children that would serve society. Due to demographics, there was pride in raising a
Going back to her prologue, The Wife seems to be criticized for something different she does by each of her husband 's. She can easily be seen as violent, demanding, too controlling, too lustful, and many other qualities. The Wife argues that no matter what women do or don’t do, they will always be criticized, “Thou seyst that som folk desiren us for richesse,/ Somme for oure shape, comme for oure fairnesse/ And som for she kan synge and daunce/ And som for gentillesse and som for/ daliaunce,/ som for hir handes and hir armes smale” (lines 257-262). While she makes a great point, she interjects these opinion’s during her tale as well. Interrupting the flow of her story to display her opinions in this way can lose the audience 's focus of the true meaning of the story. The story itself does a great job of bringing the role femininity into play without The Wife’s interjections. In the beginning of the tale, right after the queen orders the knight to go on his quest she gives him some hints. “Somme seyde wommen loven bset richesse;/ Somme seyde honour, somme seyde jolynesse,/ Somme rich array. Somme seyden lust/ abedde/ And oftetyme to be wydwe and weedde” (lines 925-928). This shows that women want more than materialistic things, contrary to popular belief. While these things aren’t bad to have, it means nothing if they do not have the power over their significant
In the satiric novel, Vanity Fair, William Makepeace Thackeray exposes and examines the vanities of 19th century England. Numerous characters in the novel pursue wealth, power, and social standing, often through marriage or matrimony. Thackeray effectively uses the institution of marriage to comment on how these vanities often come at the expense of the true emotions of passion, devotion, and, of course, love.