Why was Queen Victoria so against giving rights to women?

I never understood it either. Let’s hope someone can give us an answer.

I knew the old bat was good for something. Bully for her.

She knew firsthand how bitchy women can be and didn’t want to give them any more encouragement.
(Ducks and covers)

Primarily because we should never depend on an absolute monarch – whose power derives mostly from the aristocracy, after all – to be a revolutionary in such matters. She was a product of her time and of her position.

She just seems to have really felt that women weren’t constitutionally equipped to deal with politics. Even herself, really. She once said, “I am every day more convinced that we women, if we are to be good women, feminine, amiable and domestic, are not fitted to reign”.

Her private writings are full of expressions of low regard for the intellectual powers of women. She relied heavily on male confidants during in her reign. She once even said that she never bought a dress or bonnet without consulting her husband.

Makes Michelle Bachmann sound like a raging feminist

Because she was a right royal pain in the arse, a trait common in that most odious of families.

I’ve actually been surprised at how many women are actually opposed to women in politics. An ex girlfriend even went on a rant once about how she would never vote a for a woman running for president, regardless of the platform.

Not that I agree

She was a product of her times. Men had convinced women that they were inferior. Women were kept away from newspapers, kept away from education, kept from owning property or managing finances, and kept away from politics.

I am sure Phyllis Schlafly would agree with Queen Victoria. There are many women against feminism, just as their were women against women’s suffrage. Even Michelle Bachmann believes women should be submissive to their husbands.

Just because they reject their own liberation doesn’t mean a fig.

I don’t think we know all there is to know about that frumpy woman. Her daughter spent years after her death editing and burning her papers, and her reputation was tightly guarded through all the years she avoided her royal duties. It’s recently come to light that Elizabeth I was not a virgin queen at all, having two illegitimate sons with her lover, Robert Dudley, the eldest was Sir Francis Bacon, and the youngest she had executed. If you don’t believe me, do the research. I would have been shocked if I hadn’t learned years ago that all the history we’re taught in school is pretty much rubbish.

@thorninmud Cool, thanks. Do you know where I could find a source on her views on women, perhaps? Maybe some historian who’s written a book on her views on women or something?

@RubyB Well, we never know everything. We’re always limited by sources. But, do you have a source for the Queen Elizabeth thing? I’d love to research it more, and having a starting point would be killer awesome.

@marinelife Yeah, but she wasn’t just a product of her time. Tons of women at the time didn’t believe that. And, I don’t want to dismiss it as just “eh, women those days”, which is why I asked the question. I want to know what went into Victoria’s thinking, personally, and know more about it, not just dismiss it and move on.

@Aethelflaed
This is a very good biography that looked at her anti-feminist views.

@Adirondackwannabe Man, and I was used to not seeing dumbass comments from you like that.

Perhaps it had to do with religion. She believed God intended a correct role for women and that was as a helpmate to the man. Perhaps she identified as a man and we never knew. Maybe she was transgender and sexist.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Maybe she was transgender and sexist. Lol. Intersex, maybe, but I think she was before the idea of transgender and transexuality came about. She’s usually considered a big proponent of the strict gender binary, iirc.

@Aethelflaed We don’t know what she felt inside though and if she did feel like a man, she wouldn’t say that to anyone or write about it. Anyway, this is quite hyperbolic of a discussion. I think the answer lies with status. She was royalty, she could rule. All other women were to be women.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Well, we do have some diaries of hers, as well as speeches and other sources. So we know some things. And I get the idea of royalty, but I think it’s prudent to do more research into the matter before coming to a conclusion.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir In case you didn’t get it, that was said in complete sarcasm.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I’ll also give you a GA in case some idiot takes that seriously.

@Adirondackwannabe People supporting you for that post might have missed the sarcasm. ‘Cause it sounded like the usual cliche a bitter man would use and then try to diffuse the tension by saying ‘duck and cover’.

I would hope after all the discussions we’ve had on this issue most would get that I wasn’t serious.

@Adirondackwannabe I’m thinking it’s the lack of a ~ that throws people off.

S’ok, @Adirondackwannabe. After all this time I’ve learned that you’re never serious.

@CWOTUS I’m serious when I need to be serious.