Talk:Women in the Victorian era
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details. |
[edit] Women in the Victorian eraNeeds stylistic improvement. Emiao 03:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Removed some graffiti and corrected a heading that had been altered. Anonymous. The sentence "In conclusion, Englishmen would not have woman surgeons or physicians; they confined them to their role as nurses." needs work. Grammatical/Stylistic improvement still needed throughout. Anonymous. |
|
Contents |
What sources are there, if any? >< --Chezzie 14:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Chezzie
Prose needs to be cleaned up. -Emiao
I cleaned up the article, then made some changes.
[edit] Inaccurate
The line: "The legal rights of married women were similar to those of children; they could not vote or sue or even own property." This is incorrect, they actually could own property. It was just legally absorbed by their husbands when they married. Someone fix this please.
[edit] An absurdity that just bounced out
"and he had the right to enforce this by a writ of habeas corpus" in Limited rights of married women section.
Now this is amusing for 3 reasons 1) habeas corpus is a writ relating to detained persons 2) "bring me my wifes body" invokes some fairly interesting sexual connotations most of which are not entirely in line with the alleged Victorian sacred temple concept - the remainder of the article makes this very funny. 3) its very hard to enforce ones will on somebody merely by having their physical presence.
I think what the author was intending on suggesting was that a husband could apply for an enforcement of "conjugal rights" - although IIRC so could a wife and the concept of "restoration of conjugal rights" still exists in some jurisdictions Paul Hjul 07:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unbelievable
I'm sorry if I'm writing my comment on the wrong page, I'm not quite sure how this programme works. While doing some reseach I came accross these sentences at the end of the topic 'Women and sex'.. "It was also hot and the men liked it very much. The women wore normal chlothes to find the men to sell themselves to. She liked when the man fucked her hard and fast. The man liked it too. The woman also fingered herself and cumed all over." I'm sorry, but this person is clearly on the wrong site, has a low IQ (judging by his english) and has very little knowledge about sex... If I knew how it worked I would edit this page myself, unfortunately when I click on edit - these sentences don't appear! I don't understand why... but could someone else be so kind as to do something about it?!
[edit] POV
This article doesn't strike me as having a particularly neutral POV.
"they were to be treated as saints, but saints that had no legal rights."
Niall Jackson 13:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Silly Vandalism
I removed the line: "can you actually change anything on this site? that's whack." as it it is unrelated to the topic and a form of petty vandalism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Hjul (talk • contribs) 08:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] This article is limited
This article only explores Victorian women (especially sexuality) on the most superfical level, and seems to rely more on pre-concieved stereotypes of Victorian womanhood than actualy historical sources. It talks about sexual repression, but it doesn't even see fit to so much as MENTION Female hysteria, or how "pelvic massage" (read:masturbation) was actually recommended for this. Nor does it mention women in the American West broke several taboos. This an unsourced, simplistic, shallow, POV trainwreck of an article and it desperately needs to be worked on by an expert. Asarelah 17:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
