Perhaps the first documented court account of child abuse was State vs. Rehberg (1885). Edward Rehberg was convicted of severely beating, and in-turn murdering his eleven-year-old daughter, Clara Rehberg. Back in the nineteenth century, when this case occurred, the jury’s intents and decisions were based on different parameters then today. The reasons for the different verdicts in each century wholly depend on the constructed gender roles of the time and the period’s social hierarchy.
The 19th century itself mainly concerned itself with clear separations between masculinity and feminism. Men were considered aggressors, disciplinarians, and physically strong people. On the other hand, women were looked at as the typical “mother figure”; assuming the role of caregivers, protectors, and nurturers. They also were considered unable of physical violence or aggression, especially towards their own children.
The notion of child abuse being instigated by a female did not fit into the persona of a 19th century woman, and therefore was seen as impossible. As far as the masses were concerned, it was common knowledge in the 19th century that the man did the majority of the physical punishment and/or abuse. Men obviously are more muscular and prone to aggression then females. For the 19th century jury, it is most likely they attributed any possible notion of physical abuse right upon Edward Rehberg.
Another characteristic of the Rehberg family that influenced the court’s outcome would have been their social class. The Rehberg families were obviously of a lower class, since they always seemed too caught up in physical labor and wore overalls the majority of the time. We also have to take in account that the jury itself consisted of people from town, and that their condescending opinions of the Edward’s family could of swayed their decision of his innocence. To the people of higher class in the jury, they most likely viewed the Rehberg family as an unwanted addition to their community. Hearing all these accusations about child abuse and females working in men’s clothes further degraded their opinions of Edward’s family. The jury let the minds of the society’s stereotypes determine their verdict rather than the hard evidence. In the end, the combination of Rehberg’s social class and the attributes given to him for being a 19th century man probably would have resulted in him being found guilty. Even though the deathbed declaration of Clara was included in the trial, the jury would probably overlooked this and instead convicted him anyways. His conviction would allow the higher social classes to get rid of him from their community and not have to bother themselves with lower class matters.
If this case were presented to us as a 20th century jury, a much different outcome would have been generated. The 20th century generally relies on the use of evidence instead of cultural stereotypes when determining the verdict of a court case. Even though social roles are not entirely non-existent today, they are not as deeply embedded in society as they were in 1800’s. Even today though, “as women joined the workforce they became increasingly aware of their unequal economic and social status” (The Feminist Movement in the 20th Century: Introduction). Women are still faced with a male dominant world, even though it isn’t as strict as it was in the 19th century.
Another diminished institution from the 19th century is the notion of the social class hierarchy. Obviously we still have social classes today, but they are not as prominent and all powerful as they were in the 19th century. Everyone is equally guilty and innocent, regardless of your income. With these ideas in mind we came to the conclusion that Edward Rehberg would not be found guilty, and that Louisa would instead receive the accusation. The key factor in our decision was the use of the deathbed declaration. Clara would have no real reason to lie as she approached the end of her life, and she would want the truth to be known so that her stepmother wouldn’t escape from her actions. The accusation of Louisa fits into the social context of the 20th century that woman are as equal as men, and thus capable of committing the same kinds of crimes. The 20th knows that physical abuse isn’t strictly confined to the 19th century archetype of the strong, aggressive burly male who always beats his children when they are disobedient. For the 20th century, both genders have the ability to exemplify traits of the other. The black and white gender distinctions of the 1800’s have disappeared with the progression of 1900’s, and gradually moved into the gray area of “any gender can do anything.”
Works Cited:
“The Feminist Movement in the 20th Century: Introduction.” Available HTTP:http://www.bookrags.com/english/literarymovements/the-femini-introduction- flgc-04.html; [November 10, 2005].
Image 1- http://tell.fll.purdue.edu/JapanProj/FLClipart/Nouns/people&animal/children.gif
Image 2- http://www.mystudios.com/art/impress/pissarro/pissarro-haystack-1873.jpg
Hey Colleen,
I just finished reading your group blog. There are so many interesting points throughout your essay that it is hard to critique it. Let me start by saying that your use of evidence and factual documents is obviously present. This blog has very good transitional sentences. Some of the points in the argument, however, incorporate some opinions that are objective. You state that the use of social classes is not as prominet as it was back in the 19th century. To tell you the truth, I'm not too sure that this is true. I honestly believe that we have even more of that type of classification today than we ever had before. But again, thats just my opinion lol. Your group also stated that racism and prejudice is not as prominent as it was before. I think that you're right. Yet, at the same time, I also think that people today are more prone to hide what they really feel about other races so as to not seem like a racist to society. The argument was precise and backed up with many facts. The blog was not cluttered or messy so it made the reading very easy. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Juan R. | November 16, 2005 at 12:25 PM