Women and the City

I found it interesting that Elisabeth Wilson mentions that on one hand, the city “undermin[es] patriarchal authority” because women are now moving through the city unattended to find work (92). They experience a sense of freedom and anonymity that comes with living and/or working in the city. But, I’m not sure if the city does in fact undermine patriarchy completely. Women who needed to work were limited in options. They could not apply for any position, they could only apply to what was available to them (and that was not much). The workforce was restricted to women due to what society (men) thought was or was not acceptable. Perhaps working-class women had more opportunities to move through the city, to work, and experience a small slice of independence, but they were still confined to most (if not all) of the traditional norms that have been established by patriarchy. Wilson is correct in that taking women away from the domestic sphere and placing them into the public sphere became a “threat to male power and male frailty” (95). Having women in and out of the public life was unsettling, and it was impossible as Wilson points out, to control and restrict their behavior completely. Nevertheless, women were still subjected to the confines of patriarchy. Yes, they were able to disrupt it on some level, but they were still bound to it. 

Wilson explains that the movement of middle class women was for more easily regulated (93). They did not have the freedom to move through the city in the same manner that the way working-class women did. And, even when women began to have their own public meeting areas, they were still excluded from mingling in mixed company. Why? By confining them to specific female spaces, was it easier for society to watch and regulate them? Obviously, there was a struggle with how to deal with the female body outside the private  sphere. 

As I continued to read Wilson’s article, I was reminded once again of how afraid society, (men in particular) were afraid of women’s sexuality (they still are). Just by having them occupy the same space as men made them feel uneasy. When Wilson discusses the issue of prostitution, she explains that men such as Alain Corbin, believed that “the prostitute’s body is putrefying, and [it] infects the social body with corruption and death” (92). When I read this, I was first aggravated by his comments, and then I wondered why Corbin did not condemn those who sought out prostitution? Prostitution is embedded in patriarchy; it is an integral part of patriarchy and that fact that it was a huge threat to society highlights how patriarchy was not (and is still not) undermined by including women in public life. (I don’t know if I explained that correctly). What I’m trying to say is that although there are more women occupying the male space, they are occupying the space in such a way that only serves men but that do not necessarily benefit from them in any way. So, even if they are in the same space as men, women still do not have the capability to access their own agency, which then allows men to continue to assert their power.  I’m not saying that bringing women into the city has not imposed a threat to patriarchy, it has to some extent, but I think that it also has reinforced it as well.