Middle class women in the period 1780-1918 participated in the public sphere, through philanthropic work and later campaigns to further their own position, they were highly recognised for this and their work did challenge the dominant ideals of femininity. Most importantly, they presented a strong social challenge. Femininity is well defined by Welter as “piety, purity, submissiveness and domesticity”. This notion is best presented through analysis of British middle-class women, as British Victorianism strongly enforced femininity. Their activities challenged social, economic and political femininity as women were expected to remain within the private sphere with no public participation. Midgley and Haggis present this positive interpretation. However, there are nuances, aspects of public sphere work sometimes confirmed pre-existing stereotypes, and this traditional viewpoint is advocated by Vickery and Hall. In addition, the argument is restricted by confinement to the ‘middle class’, as this is not representative of all women, however, the separation of spheres was highly unique to the middle-classes.
Socially, middle class women were expected to be an angel in the house, their role was to be a doting wife and mother. Middle class women challenged these ideals through philanthropy. Philanthropy caused a challenge as it provided the basis for the growth of British feminism and encouraged non-conformist views. Midgley places great emphasis upon this interpretation, arguing anti-slavery campaigns to have been “essential to the development of feminism”. Similarly, Haggis, argues that the colonial missionaries took “centre stage” in “emancipating” themselves. Thus, philanthropy was a key challenge as it exposed women to issues of inequality which caused them to question their own position and desire change. The arguments of Midgley and Haggis are convincing as a clear link can be defined between philanthropic campaigns and early feminism, a high proportion of former philanthropists who went on to become feminist leaders, such as Rebecca Moore. Further evidence for the claim can be found in the emergence of feminist texts such as Reid’s A Plea for Women. However, an alternative interpretation states that philanthropic work confirmed the dominant ideals of femininity. Hall argues that the nature of the work reinforced maternal qualities through its moral focus, and states charity was seen as the “proper activity of the lady”. Hall suggests therefore that philanthropy was itself a key ideal of femininity. However, Hall’s criticism is unconvincing as many conformed to social ideals not out of womanly duty but in order to be able to participate within the public sphere, it was seen by the women campaigners as “particularly necessary”. A further denunciation argues that women could not socially emancipate themselves through philanthropy due to the domination of the evangelical movement by men who believed in the continuation of a patriarchal society. This notion is strongly suggested by Vickery when she states, “women were allotted subsidiary roles”, suggesting minimal involvement. However, the view presented by Vickery fails to take into account the longer-term social implications of philanthropy such as surge in confidence and initial awakening, she also fails to ponder the idea that repression in philanthropy, where women were highly active, may have inspired agitation. Therefore, as criticisms are undermined, philanthropy was crucial in challenging the dominant social ideals of femininity.
Economically, middle class women were not to work, they were to concern themselves with the running of the house and the attainment of the “paraphernalia of the gentry”. Again, philanthropy played a key role, middle class women were able to work outside of the home and in some cases outside of Britain in challenging situations. Middle class women, unlike those from the working class, were unable to access formal employment, so philanthropy provided an avenue into economic fulfilment. Evidence for this argument can be found in the case of Mary Anne Cooke, who established a network of 800 schools in Calcutta and pioneered as Midgley states, an “alternative vocation to marriage”, work. The interpretation is convincing as it is confirmed, it was approximated in 1889 that there were more foreign female missionaries than male. However, conventional economic participation did not open up to many middle class women until the outbreak of war in 1914. The employment of women increased from 24% to 37%. A proportion of these women would have been middle class as after the war there was a “post-war backlash” and a return to domesticity which would not have applied to the working classes. This suggests an external factor, the war, not the women themselves challenged economic ideals. Hill further confirms this by stating that married women “lost-out”. However, criticisms of the challenge women proposed to economic ideals are undermined by Lomas who refers to the impact of the war as an “oft-stated myth” and emphasises how before the war a third of married women were already working. Therefore, women did challenge economic ideals, but not to the same extent as the social effort due to greater complications of gaining access to the economic sphere.
Politically, middle class women were excluded from the franchise and politics was firmly located within the male sphere of influence. Politics is the most prolific area of challenge because of the work of the suffragists and suffragettes. However, social challenge was more important, as without the foundation of feminism there would not have been a push for suffrage. Philanthropic work was a crucial challenge to political ideals, it introduced middle class women to the political sphere through the issues tackled and the actions taken. Through petitioning and campaigning, for women learnt how to organise effective pressure group action, which preluded and made possible the suffrage campaign. Suffrage was the clearest challenge to the dominant ideals of femininity, it was a “war” and a “belligerent motion”. Both the NUWSS (Fawcett) and the WSPU (Pankhurst), were highly middle class and they petitioned parliament and in the case of the WSPU organised violent demonstrations to challenge political restraints upon women. Thus, it is evident that there was a direct rejection of political ideals. However, the political challenge was not applicable to all middle-class women, the suffrage organisations did not have universal membership, and there was a failure to sustain progress after gaining the vote, with limited success in encouraging voting and a lack of female representation, suggesting the challenge did not go far enough. This criticism can be overlooked in terms of the argument as the initial challenge was present.