Angel in the House
Term coined by Coventry Patmore, who wrote a narrative poem with this title for his first wife Emily in 1854 and expanded it until 1862. According to the myth of the "Angel in the House" women should devote themselves entirely and unconditionally to the well-being of the family. These women embodied the Victorian female (middle-class) ideal. In the Victorian era, separate spheres of men and women were supported.
Selflessness and submissiveness were the personal characteristics of every "Angel in the House". She was the one who turned the home into heaven; she was the backbone to her husband and her children.
The French politician and anti-feminist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon divided women into two groups in the mid-century: on the one hand, there were the harlots, and on the other hand, there were the housewives. Proudhon envisioned a society which was centered on small family-owned and operated workshops headed by the husband. According to Proudhon, in such a society emancipation of women would be a disaster. Therefore, he tried everything to inhibit the emancipation movement. The politician said that wives were just a supplement to their husbands, who simply add beauty to the strength of men. In his opinion, women are on a level with children and therefore deficient and stupid human beings (Duby/Perrot 78ff., 568ff.). They were mainly there for bringing up children and for hard work, like ironing (an iron weighed 5 up to 6 kilograms in that time). Proudhon, among other politicians and philosophers, declared female inferiority as immutable.
Nevertheless, housework was considered as work without any economic value. According to Jane Lewis, housework carried out by women "was excluded from the category of ‘work’ in 1881 in Great Britain" (Duby/Perrot 477). Women who worked at home were classified as ‘unemployed’, which had the consequence that the working rate of women dropped by half.
From the beginning to the end of the 19th century, women were most likely depicted on pictures and photographs with a sewing machine. Women should identify with this kind of work and accept their traditional role. In an advertisement from 1896 for the firm Singer, the sewing machine was described as "Mother’s Machine" and as "most welcome wedding gift", which "greatly aids domestic bliss" (Duby/Perrot 345 ff.).
However, the ideal of the "Angel in the House" earned a lot of criticism by feminists in the 19th and 20th centuries, because women were depicted as being weak, mindless and unconfident. One of the most famous feminist critics was Virginia Woolf. The author wrote ironically: "She [the Angel in the House] was intensely sympathetic. She was immensely charming. She was utterly unselfish. She excelled in the difficult arts of family life. She sacrificed daily. If there was a chicken, she took the leg; if there was a draught she sat in it ... Above all, she was pure" (quoted in Rainbolt/Fleetwood 301).
Sources:
Duby, George / Perrot, Michelle, eds. Geschichte der Frauen: Band 4: 19. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt, New York: Campus, 1994.
Marsh, Jan. "Gender Ideology and Separate Spheres". <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Q3uDI2KyMUYJ:www.fathom.com/course/10701039/session1.html+pierre+joseph+proudhon+women&cd=14&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de>
Rainbolt, Martha / Fleetwood, Janet, eds. On the Contrary: Essays by Men and Women. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984.
Schildt, Gerhard. Frauenarbeit im 19. Jahrhundert. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus, 1993.
Vyas, Shvetal. “Angel in the House v/s The Femme Fatale: The Varied Roles of Women in Victorian Literature”. 27 Jan. 2010 <http://www.suite101.com/content/angel-in-the-house-vs-the-femme-fatale-a194297>