MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4365807518 · doi:10.2979/victorianstudies.63.3.12

From Spinster to Career Woman: Middle-Class Women and Work in Victorian England, by Arlene Young

2021· article· en· W4365807518 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueVictorian Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMiddle classNewspaperSubject (documents)Gender studiesGirlScholarshipSociologyHistoryMedia studiesPsychologyLibrary sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: From Spinster to Career Woman: Middle-Class Women and Work in Victorian England by Arlene Young Lise Shapiro Sanders (bio) From Spinster to Career Woman: Middle-Class Women and Work in Victorian England, by Arlene Young; pp. x + 217. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2019, $110.00, $29.95 paper. Arlene Young’s scholarship has been influential in shaping research on women, work, and Victorian culture for over two decades: in addition to editing two novels for Broadview Press (Tom Gallon’s The Girl Behind the Keys [1903] and George Gissing’s The Odd Women [1893]), she is the author of the monograph Culture, Class and Gender in the Victorian Novel: Gentlemen, Gents and Working Women (1999). In her most recent book, From Spinster to Career Woman: Middle-Class Women and Work in Victorian England, Young extends her scope to include historical and literary perspectives on middle-class women’s struggles to gain entry into two key professions in the nineteenth century: nursing and typewriting. Young approaches her subject with an interdisciplinary methodology based in close attention to Victorian newspapers and periodicals, revealing the heated debates about the transformations wrought in both fields. This is an engaging book that will be of interest to scholars in literary studies, history, and periodical studies, and to readers invested in exploring the relationship between gender and class in discourses around women’s work in the Victorian era. As Young notes in her introduction, “At the beginning of the Victorian period, to be a middle-class woman was to be a dependent—a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother. . . . By the end of the century, middle-class women . . . could choose not to be dependent, not to be limited to a domestic life. . . . This change was little short of revolutionary” (3). To explore the cultural significance of this societal shift, Young addresses Victorian debates over the “Woman Question” in her first chapter, examining depictions of several types including “the Strong-Minded Woman, the Glorified Spinster, and the New Woman” (12–13). The latter type has been much studied, but Young usefully reorients our attention to the first two figures and to their agency and cultural roles. Florence Nightingale, the iconic “Strong-Minded Woman” in George Whyte-Melville’s 1863 essay on the topic, evokes the power associated with the intelligence, judiciousness, and attention to duty associated with this figure, one who also, Young notes, “retains essential characteristics of the ideal Victorian woman” (37). The “Glorified Spinster,” by contrast, recasts the figure of the “Old Maid” as (in the words of Frances Martin, whose 1888 essay in Macmillan’s Magazine [1859–1907] coined the term) not “a woman minus something,” but “a woman plus something” (36), and importantly, a woman defined neither by marriage nor even her career, but by “what work allows her to do and to be” (37). In subsequent chapters, Young examines the two types of employment that structure her study. The nurse and the typewriter (which was the period’s term for the woman worker herself, not solely the machine she worked on) represent for Young two distinct aspects of middle-class women’s employment: a traditionally feminine field (nursing), redefined through debates over female agency, authority, and caregiving, and a newly modern occupation (typewriting) waiting to be defined by the women workers who would come to be associated with technological capability and modern innovation. In paired chapters on the historical context and literary representations of Victorian nursing, Young debunks the myth of Nightingale as the gentle Lady of the Lamp, recontextualizing her and other influential figures as assertive and authoritative in period disputes over hospital reform. Young then analyzes a wide range of fictional narratives [End Page 447] that critique and reimagine Charles Dickens’s caricature of Sairey Gamp, the drunken and disreputable nurse in Martin Chuzzlewit (1842–44). In texts ranging from Elizabeth Gaskell’s Ruth (1853) to fictionalized memoirs and sketches published in periodicals like Fraser’s Magazine (1830–82), Work and Leisure (1880–93), and the Girl’s Own Paper (1880– 1956), to little-known novels like Elisabeth J. Lysaght’s A Long Madness (1877) and George Manville Fenn’s Nurse Elisia...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,829
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,069
Tête enseignante GPT0,254
Écart entre enseignants0,185 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle