A Man's World?, Double Standards in the Regency Period

The discussion on vice and virtue got me thinking about the difference in moral standards expected of men and women back in Regency times - and many other times as well. Men could get pre-marital sexual experience and be admired for it; a girl or woman who did the same thing was "damaged goods".

Devil's Cub is one example of the double standard; Sophia would have been irretrievably ruined by her adventure with Vidal, had it taken place - he would have suffered no adverse effect at all.

Reformed rakes were generally considered good husband material, and they frequently get the very young, virtuous, virginal girls. I'm not sure if the comment about "I'd rather be your last love than your first" is from a Heyer novel, but it could very well be.

Where do we see the double standard in Heyer's books? Do we see her, a relatively modern woman, speaking out against it in any way?

great topic, estelyn!

i can't really think of any heyeroine who would be considered a feminist. they seem to take the double standards of their social milieu as accepted fact. of course, one thing to keep in mind is the fact that heyer's own social times wasn't really that much more "progressive" than the regency (in fact, i'd say it was less).

i think the closest she comes to having a female character point out the inequalities of the time would be venetia's mother, who complained about how she was mistreated by venetia's father. it's difficult to take her seriously, though, because she is portrayed as one of the "sinners" by going off with another man. readers can be sympathetic, but i think she is still not looked upon with approval -- her besetting sin, of course, is leaving her children motherless and at the mercies of both father and society.

even one of the most outspoken heyeroines, the grand sophy, doesn't much question double-standards. "what sir horace says is always right!" comes out of her lips a lot. and what of her "meek submission" to mr. rivenhall at the end, after he's declared his love with such memorable words as "i despise you excessively" (or something along those lines) -- oh, bestill my aching heart!

and no, i don't consider the fact that only women can cry off on an engagement without being condemned as "progressive".

of course, credit should be given to women such as the grand sophy: while not
questioning the status quo, they do find ways of working around the rigid rules of social expectations -- the classic "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" with a twist. women do find certain freedoms and means of improving their lives -- women of the upper class, with means, of course (doubt the lower classes had much of anything). if she was strong-willed, a wife could definitely "rule the roost" and hen-peck the husbands and children.

anyway, i'm rambling, so i'll stop.

It seems quite true to me that the heroines in Heyer's books take the double standard of sexual morality as a given and don't question it. Frankly, I like this because I dislike excessive anachronism in historical fiction. We don't really need to see a 20th (or 21st) century lady dressed up in a Regency gown. Of course a 20th century woman wrote the stories, but Heyer did a good job of avoiding obvious or glaring anachronism.

The question of the reformed rake is an interesting one. Does the popularity of the reformed rake reflect the love of some women for "bad boys"? Do we women like to think that we can reform a man? Or maybe the attractiveness of the reformed rake has to do with the idea that we like to think that people really can change and can redeem themselves, or be redeemed by another person.

I've been listening to The Black Moth as an audio book recently. This form of experiencing a book gives me much more time for reflecting on the story than my usual mode of reading, so I've been thinking over some of the issues raised by that book. The idea that love has redemptive power is a recurrent theme in The Black Moth. The Duke of Andover may be rescued from his loveless and malicious existence if he comes to love a woman in such a way as to place her well-being above his own. I think this is the emotional meaning of the reformed rake.

And the tragedy of the era was that she would have had no choice. Even if she were the wronged party in a divorce case, a woman would have lost custody of her children, right up until the Custody of Infants Act in 1839.
I was always appalled by the sobbing abandoned girl in "Friday's Child", and the merely mild disapproval the men showed to the villain (can't remember his name now).