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).
However, the overarching intent of this letter is to make sure women do not take on important jobs during the war because they are only fit to being mothers and wives. Finally, Document 7 shows the percentage of women in the workforce over a number of years. These statistics were polled directly before, during, and after World War I in France. As expected, there is a heightened number during the war, but the number drops lower after the war than it was before the war. This unpredicted decline can be blamed on the incredible animosity men have for any advance for
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
“Deborah Sampson, the daughter of a poor Massachusetts farmer, disguised herself as a man and in 1782, at age twenty-one, enlisted in the Continental army. Ultimately, her commanding officer discovered her secret but kept it to himself, and she was honorably discharged at the end of the war.” She was one of the few women who fought in the Revolution. This example pictured the figure of women fighting alongside men. This encouraged the expansion of wife’s opportunities. Deborah, after the Revolution along with other known female figures, reinforced the ideology of Republican Motherhood which saw the marriage as a “voluntary union held together by affection and mutual dependency rather than male authority.” (Foner, p. 190). This ideal of “companionate” marriage changed the structure of the whole family itself, the now called Modern Family in which workers, laborers and domestic servants are now not considered member of the family anymore. However even if women thought that after the war they would have been seen from the society in a different way it never happened. The revolution haven’t changed the perception of the woman and the emancipated ideal
Some women enlisted in the army to fight on the battlefield. Their reasons varied as some fought for money and
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.
the battlefield; however, after the war women resumed their previous roles, as house wives or jobs in domestic service, etc. (BBC UK)
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...
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.
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.
... 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).
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.