My topic of research from Lee Jackson’s The Victorian Dictionary was about female clerks. There was a satire article from the Victorian newspaper Punch about a female clerk being hired in a post office. The article deftly makes a mockery of the idea of women working in a post office: “…we see no objection to female clerks, who will, at all events, be sure to have something to say…” (“A FEMALE FUNCTIONARY”). Due to their lack of having a voice in many situations, the writer is teasing the idea that they would love to speak here because elsewhere they are to remain silent and submissive. The article continues to mock women by targeting the limitations of their legal standing: “We rather tremble…for we know what an awful propensity most women have to put papers to rights, and the inextricable confusion into which papers are generally thrown by the process” (“A FEMALE FUNCTIONARY”). Seeing as how women are rarely allowed to sign legal papers without the consent of a male guardian, this is a shot on their limitations. The idea of them handling the legal papers of others is certainly humorous and ridiculous to the Victorian readers. If not degrading enough to the female gender, the satire ends by taking the responsibilities of their position and twisting them into a cruel joke: “Perhaps, however, the State Papers are not intended for reference, and as most of them are possibly mere waste paper by this time, a female hand may be very useful in cramming them into all sorts of holes and corners, where they will be quite out of everybody’s way, and utterly inaccessible” (“A FEMALE FUNCTIONARY”). The author morphs the female clerk from the role of maintaining the functioning of an important service into handling an unimportant task where the result does not affect the documents in the least. He talks about the female clerks cramming the waste paper away where it is in nobody’s was and inaccessible but he is also referring to the clerks themselves as if their job would satisfy them and keep them out of the real business of government and law.
Works Cited
“A FEMALE FUNCTIONARY.” Punch. Victorian London Dictionary. Web. 12 February 2016. http://www.victorianlondon.org/index-2012.htm
It’s alarming to me how misogynistic this magazine was in order to be satirical. I like that you pointed out that women, who were not given a voice in nearly any situation, would be happy to be given a more significant role in society as a post office clerk . Yet the article hints at the ineptitude of women holding important positions, suggesting that they themselves feel important simply to be working even though they are actually excluded from the “real business” of things. It makes me so angry how it continuously mocks women and (incorrectly!) calls them incompetent– and as you said, people found this blatant degradation of women to be humorous! There were certainly incompetent men holding all sorts of important positions and occupations, and yet this article feels the need to bring women down in an attempt at being funny.
It’s almost gross to think that this was the opinion of the time period—that women working in a Post Office was something to scoff at. Taking a jab at women finally having a voice, or being able to handle legal documents for themselves for the first time, as though the idea is so atrocious the author can’t picture a scenario where it would happen is alarming. The last quote you cite—“a female hand may be very useful in cramming them into all sorts of holes and corners”—really got me, too. As though the only use a woman can be is to hide things, useless things, into the nooks and crannies of their surroundings. I also enjoy your closing statement—it seems as though the author of this piece wanted to demean women and make a statement saying that keeping them busy here in the Post Office or in a clerk position is almost like them being the paper—they are out of everyone’s way and doing a meaningless job/task.