Governesses in Nineteenth Century England

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What have ye to say on the subject? I just finished Jane Eyre for the second time, and I'm in the mood to discuss.

What do you think about the governess? Do you think she challenged or maintained established gender roles? I think they did both. They maintained the established divide between sexes by being a part of the system that divided them; girls studied with governesses more often, while boys were sent off to boarding schools. Now there were instances when both sexes did the opposite; Jane never had a governess, and she wound up going to a boarding school, but by and large the scenario stated above was the norm in Victorian England. However, the governess also challenged the status quo because it was a woman entering the workforce, sustaining herself without the help or protection of a man.
So why then, did the enigmatic live-in teachers exist? At the same time, they seem to completely hold up society. So how were we able to get rid of the need for the governess without dramatically upsetting the established order of things?
While it is true that the end of the governess coincides with woman's suffrage, I do not see female emancipation to be their downfall. I do not know when compulsory education was instituted in England, but if I had to guess i would say the late 1910s. That seems to be a satisfactory answer to the question, but only of course if my timeframe is correct. And if it is wrong? What then, led to the downfall of the governess?

Okay, NOW you can discuss.

 

[Plotinus]

Surely you mean "have ye"?

But what's the question?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Surely you mean "have ye"?

But what's the question?

Surely. I apologize for not elaborating (or stating a question at all!) I was a wee bit tired last night.

I'll just edit the OP.

 

[Verbose]

Governess = young (initially) woman of "good" background (solid British upper middle class or so) in an otherwise precarious social and financial situation.

Working for a living means her entire family is destitute, and she's unable to find a husband, which is the only way for a woman to live in the 19th c.

A governess is a social looser of a certain social standing, a "pauvre honteux" (poor and ashamed of it). And since the potential employers are limited to the wealthier upper crust minority that can afford a governess, there can never have been that many of them.

She's a social and gender anomaly in some respects, but as she's employed within the household, she's not threatening to the established social order. A working woman, unattached, outside her own family, but emphatically Not a Public Woman (shudder), like an actress for instance.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

She does conflict with the mother, though, does she not? Not onld does she compete with her over the children on such matters as dicipline, but sometimes competes with her over the husband, too!
Also, she is in between classes, she's not a part of the family, but she's not a servant, either, that leaves few people to relate to; no wonder girls feared becoming a governess in adulthood over many other things.

 

[GinandTonic]

The class issue is as important as the gender issue. With the burgoning of the middle and upper middle classes there were increasing numbers of women for whome it would not have been apropriate for them to engage in direct employment. Luckily there were increasing numbers of people with the need and ability to employ them in this role - hence the massive increase in their numbers.

At this time there were limited educational establishments catering to girls but a belief - especially in the burgeoning middle classes - of the value of education. These people therefore had the desire to educate their daughters and the wherewithall to afford the staff. Also it often meant they could hold onto their sons for another couple of years and avoid paying the school fees in one swoop. Remember often these were the emerging aspirational middle classes who would want to send their sons to the most expensive schools possible - far easier done if for less time.

The crux of the class issue is that the very posh couldnt have a meer servant telling the young master what to do, but a nice bright girl of good family who lives in? Fine. The aspirational middle classes would want someone who could give their own children the effortless arrogance they were not born to.

While less so this class situation persists today. Hell Ive been employed to decorate the houses of the very posh because they would rather have a painter who listens to radio 4.

The forces that created the governess also killed her. More belief in education led to universal education, more upper middle classes led to more (and thus more local) good schools, women entering the workforce led to ever increasing employment opportunities for women in need of work.

Dunno if thats any use, but hopefully it might kick off some discussion.