http://www.victorianlondon.org/index-2012.htm
This cartoon went along with this humorous piece in the Harper’s Weekly Magazine in August of 1851 (source). It was meant to deter women from doing leisurely activities and instead cook and clean for their husbands and poke fun at women who did indulge in activities that would be considered intellectual or creative. The drawing depicts the woman sprawled out on a sofa, very content with the book in her hands and her crochet project in her lap. Her surroundings are in disarray: the painting on the wall is crooked, and a broom and dustpan are disregarded on the floor along with other miscellaneous clutter. The husband is shown to be entering the house, tilting his hat down as if to not look at his wife. He is in his work attire while she is shown in a loose casual dress, which gives big blanket vibes.
This connects to the recurring theme in the novels we have read on the role a woman is supposed to have in life, the law, and relationships. It’s assumed that the woman will be the one cleaning the house to the point where you could eat all the meals she cooks off any surface. She is also solely responsible for all of their children’s needs on top of taking care of the house. She is basically a stay-at-home nanny and maid for life. Women who strayed from this typical scenario were looked down upon.
Would in a scenario where the woman went astray from what was “supposed” to happen, would adultery be deemed as something acceptable for the husband? If the community or family felt as though the wife was not meeting their expectations as a sufficient wife, would it even go as far as for adultery to be expected? If a woman were to not conform to what people thought she should be doing, would she be devalued as a member of society?
