Megan Yeats
Iryce Baron
Howards End
11-26-01
Inequality of Women throughout Howards End
The early part of the twentieth century faced many social issues resulting
from societal changes such as colonization, and wars. One of the
consequences of these alterations was the growing independence of women.
With activities like the colonization and war, women were forced to get
jobs and keep the family going while the men were fulfilling their patriotic
and masculine duties. The more women were indoctrinated into the
workplace and away from their homes, the quicker they acknowledged that
societies ways of treating women were unjust. Thus, the women’s suffrage
movement began full swing. It is with all this in mind, that E.M.
Forester wrote his novel Howards End. While claiming to write a progressive
feminist novel, in actuality, Forster succeeds in only furthering the degradation
of women through the female characters.
The first character that the reader is introduced to is Helen Schlegel through letters she writes while she is at Howards End to her sister Margaret Schlegel. From the first introductions of her, it becomes clear that Forester is setting the precedent for the rest of the novel. She writes to Meg, relaying a conversation she had with Mr. Henry Wilcox. “He says the most horrid things about women’s suffrage so nicely, and when I said I believed in equality he just folded his arms and gave me such a setting down as I’ve never had. Meg, shall we ever learn to talk less?” (3). Helen had the opportunity here to stand up for her beliefs and the rights of women. Although she does this, she instantaneously regrets doing so and indicates that in the future, she hopes that she will not express her opinions. Thus, Forester is demonstrating that the independence and outspokenness of women and their desires is inconsequential to the development of society. The second aspect of Helen that the reader receives from the letters is the stereotypical overemotional, quickly falling in and out of love, woman. She writes Meg, “Paul and I are in love—the younger son who only came here Wednesday” (3). As the reader quickly discovers, this is not really love, only a small infatuation that lasts not even a week. Again, through this, Forester gives the reader a negative stereotypical impression of women that will continue throughout Howards End.
As the novel progresses, Helen begins to exhibit independent feminist qualities, however, most of them do not follow her through until the end. Helen, disliking Henry Wilcox, voices her frustrations and loathe of him by stating, “What a prosperous vulgarian Mr. Wilcox has grown! I have very little use for him in these days.” (107). Due to all of the pain and suffering he caused so many, this opinion is extremely valid. However, Forester allows for Helen, as a supposedly strong willed character, to completely change her mind about Mr. Wilcox by the end of the novel. She tells Meg, “Meg, may I tell you something? I like Henry” (266). Hence, another reason why Helen is not as independent as one might hope for her to be.
Another example of how Helen is undermined as a character is through her relationship with Leonard Bast. Throughout the novel she is the only one that is continually rallying for the underprivileged. After Mr. Wilcox gave the Schlegel sisters false information that eventually causes Mr. Bast to lose his job and be evicted from his house, Helen decides to confront Mr. Wilcox. She announces to Meg, “I’ll stand for injustice no longer. I’ll show up the wretchedness that lies under this luxury, this talk of impersonal forces, this cant about God doing what we’re too slack to do ourselves” (177). As an independent woman, she stands up for the atrocities that have been done to Mr. Bast. Unfortunately, the only the thing that results from this escapade is Helen getting pregnant by Mr. Bast. Mr. Wilcox never offers Mr. Bast a job, Meg lies to her own sister saying that there are no job openings for Mr. Bast, and the Bast’s are once again, left to face the destitution of poverty. In addition to not succeeding in her attempts at independence, Helen is left pregnant and forced to leave the English society and her family. Ironically, Forester again demonstrates the male dominance and the female submissiveness when Helen’s child is a boy. Helen is not strong enough to influence the men in the novel or the sex of her own child. Thus, while at times appearing to demonstrate agreement with the women suffrage movement, Forester is clearly unsupportive of the independence of women.
Another female character that is not portrayed in a positive independent way is Mrs. Ruth Wilcox. Mrs. Wilcox devoted her entire life to her family. While devotion to ones family is an admirable quality, the extent to which she performed her devotion is questionable. During a dinner party that Meg had in honor of Mrs. Wilcox, Meg discovered that Mrs. Wilcox had little in common with her other guests. “Mrs. Wilcox, whose life had been spent in the service of husband and sons, had little to say to strangers who had never shared it, and whose age was half her own” (57). Due to her life long commitment to her family, Mrs. Wilcox was unaccustomed to conversing is social situations, especially when talking with liberals that discussed art and literature as opposed to politics and sports. Meg gets excited when it seems as though Mrs. Wilcox has finally decided to give her opinion on Germany. When Mrs. Wilcox is questioned further, she says, “I have no side. But my husband…has little faith in the Continent” (58). Mrs. Wilcox is so entirely dependent on Mr. Wilcox that she has no room for her own opinions. This is the epitome of the unintelligent, dutiful wife, not a woman that is independent.
An additional indication that Mrs. Wilcox is not depicted as a strong woman is how she is treated after she has died. Her dying wish is that Meg inherits Howards End. Mr. Wilcox and his son Charles first doubt the capabilities of Mrs. Wilcox. Henry states, “the question is this – the invalid’s condition at the time she wrote it” (76). First, Mrs. Wilcox is disrespectfully referred to as an invalid, not as a wife or by her name. Then, in addition to being rude, her family questions her sanity when she died. This is a horid way to treat a woman that has given her entire life simply to serve her family. On top of all of this, When “the woman who had died did say to them: ‘Do this’, they answered: ‘We will not’” (77). Her family denies essentially the only thing she ever asked of them in return for all of her dedication to her family.
A further demonstration of Mrs. Wilcox’s lack of strength, is how after her death, no one refers to her my name. Her husband, who she loved for over twenty years, never calls her by her name. This shows how easily Mrs. Wilcox was replaced. One of the rare times she was mentioned is by Meg and then it is because she is going to forgive Henry for the affair he had while he was married to Ruth Wilcox. Instead of arguing and reprimanding Henry for his actions, Meg, “left him without a word. For it was not her tragedy: it was Mrs. Wilcox’s” (184). Forester gives Mrs. Wilcox the power of owning Howards End, however, does not give her the strength to use the power of the house to benefit the rights of women. Mrs. Wilcox has this amazing advantage, yet throughout the novel, she is not given thoughts of her own. Or when she does make a decision on her own, the men in the novel have more strength to overpower her choice. Thus, through this, Forester is signifying that women do not have equal rights to men.
Margaret Schlegel, who at the beginning Howards End seems to be an extremely powerful strong woman, running her household by herself and partaking in the women’s suffrage movements, by the end of the novel is viewed as a submissive woman. In the first half of the novel, while Meg is single, there are multiple occurrences where the reader is exposed to her independent thoughts and actions; however, as soon as Meg decides to marry Mr. Wilcox, there is an immediate retraction of feministic qualities. One of the initial thoughts that Meg has instantaneously after the marriage proposal regarding Mr. Wilcox is, “He must never be bothered with emotional talk, or with a display of sympathy. He was an elderly man now, and it would be futile and impudent to correct him” (131). What kind of marriage is it going to be when nothing emotional will ever be discussed? Emotions, talking, and sympathy are all personality traits that Meg had before the marriage, which in her independence, was not hesitant to demonstrate, yet, when a man enters her life, she disregards her personality to submit to him. This concept of Meg’s to acquiesce to her husband is atrocious, not only because of her diminishing feministic qualities, but because she does not even love her husband. When Helen asks Meg is she loves him, she replies, “I’ve known and liked him steadily for nearly three years” (136). To which Helen replies, “But loved him?” (136). Meg is forced to answer no. No marriage is going to prosper when there is not a foundation of love. By having Meg submissively enter a loveless relationship, Forester is diminishing the originally liberated woman.
As their marriage continues, Meg becomes more complacent then she was before. Previously, before she was married, Meg was a strong supporter of the women’s suffrage movement. Yet, after her marriage, she claims to understand the women who are against the suffrage movement. The narrator says, “Now she understood why some women prefer influence to rights. Mrs. Plynlimmon, when condemning suffragettes, had said: ‘the woman who can’t influence her husband to vote the way she wants ought to be ashamed of herself.’ Margaret had winced, but she was influencing Henry now, and though pleased at her little victory, she knew that she had won it by the methods of the harem” (181). Meg is no longer opposed to women having the right to vote because she has been domesticated by her husband. Another example of Meg’s lack of independence is seen in the description of her marriage to Mr. Wilcox. Forester writes, “He only had to call, and she clapped the book up and was ready to do what he wished. Then they would argue so jollily, and once or twice she had him in quite a tight corner, but as soon as he grew really serious, she gave in” (204). Through this passage alone, it is clear that Meg has relinquished all rights as an independent woman in order to serve her husband. Whenever he beckoned, she was at his demand. Forester, by giving Meg such subservient behavior, has entirely negated any possibility of Howards End being a progressive feminist novel.
There are multiple situations throughout Howards End that do portray Meg as an independent woman, however, each of these incidents is quickly followed by an apology of her behavior. For example, when Meg is in the car and it hits a cat. After being shuttled into another car driven by Charles, she realizes what has happened and wants to go back and see the animal. Meg requests, “’Charles, I ask you to stop.’ ‘Stopping’s no good’ drawled Charles. ‘Isn’t it?’ said Margaret, and jumped strait out of the car.” (168). Meg knew what she wanted and was not going to allow a man to tell her what she can and can not do. This is one of the few times when the reader really observes Meg blatantly refusing the instructions of a man. Yet, almost immediately, Meg regrets her behavior and apologizes to Henry. “’Oh, Henry,’ she exclaimed, ‘I have been so naughty’” (169). Obviously, these are not the words of an independent woman that is going to stand by her actions. Thus, while Forester may be attempting to give the novel a feministic outlook, he is actually forcing the female characters to continually give into the men.
At the end of the novel, there appears to be a glimmer of hope when Howards End becomes rightfully Meg’s. Finally, Meg has the house that Mrs. Wilcox originally bequeathed to her, but she also has the power of house ownership. While the novel could have ended in this feminist fashion, Forester chooses to add two aspects the end of the novel that deduct from the power of the women. First, as Henry states, “She intends to diminish her income by half during the next ten years; she intends when she does to leave the house to her—to her nephew, down in the field” (270). Thus, while she has the house, Forester is not giving her the financial securities that the men have throughout the novel. She may have the house, but not money too. Also indicated in this passage is that in the next generation of the house, it will belong to a man, instead of a woman. Hence, all of the power Forester could have given to Meg is suddenly taken away and given back to a man. The second aspect that diminishes the feminization of the novel is when the last words we hear from Meg are those giving into her husband. She has just discovered that Henry has lied to her and kept Howards End from her, yet when Henry asks if he was wrong, she replies, “You didn’t, darling. Nothing has been done wrong” (271). Obviously, what Henry did was deplorable, however, again, Meg simply acquiesces to her husband. The last words that Forester gives Meg are absolutely antifeminist. Thus, the reader is left with an unsatisfied feeling of the power of the women’s suffrage movement.
The twentieth century was an era of changes, particularly for women.
The women’s suffrage movement had begun and there were those that were
for it, and those against it. Forester, while claiming to write Howards
End in a feminist fashion, fails to do so. Through the three main
characters of Howards End, Helen, Mrs. Wilcox, and Meg, Forester continually
denies women the right for equality. The quest for equality is one
that women will repeatedly encounter and must fight against.
