African Societies

1. we need to put Shaka and the rise of the Zulu in an African context;
   
2. we need to examine the stereotype that African chieftaincy was despotic, blood-thirsty tyranny before the whites arrived and that the whites helped to ‘free’ Africans from this terrible rule.
   

• the chief owned all land;
  
• he controlled the court system and his court was the highest and final court of appeal;
  
• as chief judge he could ‘eat people up’ (i.e., confiscate their property, especially cattle) and even had the power of life and death;
  
• he was the national religious leader;
  
• he was the wealthiest man and had the most wives in his society.
  

1. Usurpation by competitors—custom and tradition decreed that only a member of the royal clan could be chief so no outsider could supplant a chief. However, with polygynous royal families, there were always brothers (including half-brothers) or uncles enough to make a plausible claim to the throne.
   
   
2. Desertion to another chief
   - neighbouring peoples were often similar culturally, linguistically, etc. so such a move was not too wrenching if one were dissatisfied.
   
   - chiefly power depended on the number of his followers and people; newcomers strengthened a chief and were usually welcomed.
   
   - thus, an unpopular chief would find his power draining away even as his neighbouring rivals were being strengthened. He would begin to lose land and cattle to his rivals and would become even less popular and less respected.
   
   
3. Assassination—the person of the chief was sacred as far as the majority of people, the commoners, were concerned, but relatives in the royal clan were not so restricted. This is what happened even to Shaka, as well as to his assassin and successor, Dingane.
   
   
4. Deposition—this seems to have applied mostly to Sotho and Tswana
   - in all societies, the heir to the previous chief was the eldest son of the Great Wife.
   
   - in some cases an unpopular chief could be deposed by downgrading the status of his mother. This could only arise if the status of Great Wife was not clearly defined (in many societies this status was clearly defined). By downgrading the status of his mother, it could be claimed that his succession was not legitimate and he would be deposed.
   
   
5. Indunas or councilors
   
   - almost all decisions were in fact collective decisions as we shall see.
   
   - as an heir came of age, his father would usually choose a number of older advisors or indunas to advise the heir; the latter would also choose some of his friends (usually young men who had gone through initiation—circumcision—with him), but as young people, their status and influence would normally be limited.
   
   - also, when a succession took place, many of the powerful indunas of his father would be too powerful and influential to ignore so they would have to be included. In effect, the powerful families and men normally had to be given a voice.
   
   - therefore, a young chief usually started his reign with a majority of older indunas; only if he lived long enough, would he gradually acquire a majority of advisors whom he had himself chosen and helped to positions of power and influence. But again the powerful could not be ignored.
   

• Legislative authority (power to make new laws and change old ones)
  - few chiefs had any. The law was extensive and sophisticated, but it was based on custom and tradition. Chiefs too were subject to the law and were expected to maintain it. As we shall see, the ancestors in the ancestor cult were very much preoccupied with maintaining custom and tradition; they showed their displeasure when this was not done by allowing disease to affect the people, their animals and their crops. Chiefs who tried to change the law or failed to maintain custom and tradition would soon find his people becoming unhappy because every illness and problem would be attributed to this cause.
  
  - few chiefs were strong enough to tamper with custom and tradition. Shaka, for example, abolished circumcision of young men as part of the rite of passage to adulthood; he also made the regimental system more rigid and long-lasting (no marriage and long service). Under pressure of fighting the Zulu in the 1820s, the Mpondo chief made the same move. Among the Xhosa, such changes are very difficult to find; some attempts are known, but almost always they had to be abandoned.
  
  - this ‘conservative’ bias in African society may be accounted for by two factors:
  
  
  • old people are often concerned about and want to restrain young people and their desire for change; unlike our society where old people are largely dismissed as ‘old fogies’ and have little influence, age and old people were treated with great respect in African societies. The main thrust of the ancestor cult was to maintain custom and tradition as we’ll see when we talk about religion; the ancestor cult too can be seen as a mechanism for restraining young people and change.
    
  • African societies were non-literate and maintaining continuity from generation to generation was likely a problem, more than it might be in a literate society where you have laws and other documents which spell out laws and legal relationships.
    
    
  - of course, this did not mean the change did not take place. New situations and circumstances arise continuously. One way to handle this (it is a major means in the U. S. with a written constitution which provides a good deal of rigidity in dealing with new circumstances) is by reinterpreting old laws; this allows adaptation while maintaining the perception of continuity and stability.
  

• Judicial authority
  - in theory, he was the chief justice; everyone had a right of appeal to the chief, including from the decisions of headmen or sub-chiefs. Thus, he was the final court of appeal.
  
  - in theory, it was the chief who made the decision. Court cases were handled very extensively. The chief, his indunas and anyone else who wanted to attend sat and listened to everyone involved in the case—complainant, the accused, witnesses and anyone having evidence or relevant information. Anyone attending could ask questions and cross examine all witnesses. When all the facts and evidence of the case had been heard, then discussions on the relevant law would examine all aspects. The chief normally did not participate in the questioning or the debates.
  
  - there were a couple of ways that decisions would be rendered. In some societies, the chief and his indunas would retire to confer on the verdict and the chief would then return to announce ‘his’ decision, which would really be a collective decision of his council. Alternately, the chief would wait for a consensus to develop in the discussion; then he would rise to render ‘his’ verdict. As he was talking, he would listen for sounds of approval and agreement; if he heard only stony silence, he would normally begin to backtrack until he did hear sounds of agreement and satisfaction.
  
  - finally, chiefs could in fact be overruled if they were so foolhardy as to ignore the general sentiment and opinion.
  
  - it should be emphasized that knowledge of the law and ability to argue legal points were greatly respected. It was one of the ways in which men of humble birth could acquire a great deal of status and respect. Any adult male could participate in court proceedings; there was no barristers’ society to control entry.
  
  
• War and peace
  
  - such decisions were decided only in large council meetings with all adult males able to attend and participate in the debates. Also, diviners and war doctors were consulted to decide if the time or action was auspicious. Decisions were reached in the same way as judicial decisions—decisions were announced by the chief as ‘his’ decision but in practice decisions were usually collective decisions made with his council and in line with popular wishes. A chief who was an outstanding warrior would likely have more say. While the chief was official commander, leadership in battle might well be, and often was, in other hands.
  

• Chiefly power
  
  - the chief was regarded as ‘father’ of the people and that included more than just political and judicial functions. In fact, they often took the name of a chief, as the ancient Hebrews in the Bible— ‘Children of Israel’. “AmaXhosa” means ‘people’ or ‘children’ of Xhosa even though only members of the royal lineage were literal descendants of Xhosa. While the chief commemorated in this way was usually dead, living chiefs also could provide the name.
  
  - the chief was supposed to show generosity, especially to those who were destitute (‘like a father’); thus, a chief needed many wives (they did agricultural work and thus provided food for hospitality) and large herds of cattle so that the latter could be lent to needy families.
  
  - marriage alliances were a means of tying all the important families in the chieftaincy to the royal house—the chief would over the years accumulate many wives. He also arranged marriages for his sisters and daughters to other families.
  
  - as agricultural producers, a large number of wives helped to build up the wealth and resources of the royal family.
  
  - large cattle herds were very important as a means of attracting people to the chieftaincy.
  
  - the chief also had important religious functions. He was chief priest of the national religion—the ancestor cult of the royal clan. He performed important ceremonies and rituals (such as, fertility ceremonies to start planting, thanksgiving ceremonies after harvest, performed sacrifices at times of disaster or crisis).
  
  - it is important to note that in regard to the actual power and influence of the chief, there was a large spectrum. Vigorous, strong leaders could direct decision-making much more extensively than weak, and not very forceful men. Thus, at one extreme were chiefs who could make decisions which would be accepted and followed, especially if they proved themselves to be successful in attracting more followers, in getting more cattle and in getting more land. At the other extreme were weak men who were little more than puppets of their councils. The majority were somewhere in between the extremes.
  

• Source of weakness—this has been the normal assessment. It is argued that the societies were always subdividing and producing a large number of small chieftaincies. This fragmentation was especially serious in resisting white intrusion; for example, the Xhosa were never able to present a united front and sometimes chieftaincies even joined with the whites. Shaka build the Zulu into such a formidable entity by reversing the process and amalgamating many of the northern Nguni polities into the Zulu Kingdom.
  
  
• Source of strength—this argument has been made by J. B. Peires in The House of Phalo. He argues that it was especially a source of strength before the coming of the whites; it assisted in the expansion of the Xhosa. Ambitious men in the royal clan were encouraged to break away with a few followers and go westward to incorporate Khoikhoi into their chiefdom. Even with the coming of the whites, he argues that the greatest military successes against the whites came as a result of adopting dispersed, guerrilla type tactics. The more centralised Zulu did less well than the Xhosa.
  

• in general, family heads had prime responsibility and therefore there was a kind of collective responsibility and liability; e.g., in case of injury or death, the head of the family, not just the perpetrator, would be on trial. Fines had to be paid by the family.
  
• the penalties (usually fines) had to be paid to the chief. The rationale was that all the people belonged to the chief and the injury therefore was to the chief (but the chief would usually give part of the fine to the family of the injured party).
  
• this collective responsibility put strong incentives on the family to restrain more unruly members; the African family often had quite strong elements of leverage to bring to bear with members who were difficult. For example, young males usually needed assistance from their families with the cattle for bridewealth to get married.
  
• procedures were very open ended; the object was to get at the truth, although, except in a case of witchcraft, torture was not used; unlike some African societies farther north, those in South Africa did not use oathing or poisons ordeals.
  
• often the onus of proof would be on the accused party; certainly, this was so in witchcraft cases, but in others too.
  
• this reverse onus is shown in ‘spoor law’; if tracks or spoor of missing cattle were traced to the vicinity of your homestead, the onus was on you to prove that the spoor continued on past your homestead. Otherwise, you would be held responsible.
  

1. Herbalists—these people have knowledge of plants and materials which have medicinal properties; this is the lowest level. Some of these people are very knowledgeable about the physiological effects of large numbers of herbs. Nor do all of their remedies rely on psychosomatic effects; sometimes, this knowledge has been tapped by medical researchers looking for new drugs and uses.
   
   
2. Diviners or Doctors (traditionally dubbed ‘witch doctors’ by whites)
   - their special function is to diagnose sources of sickness and evil; then, they prescribe remedies or cures. Often, the diagnosis may be that the ancestors are unhappy because the living family members are not performing customs and adhering to traditions. Thus, the ancestors have to be appeased by sacrifices and by performance of custom.
   
   - diviners are also used to uncover or “smell out” black magic—witchcraft—and the perpetrators (‘witches’). In this case, counter magic (medicine) may be used against the witchcraft and action taken against the ‘witch’ if the identity can be determined.
   
   
3. War Doctors
   - they specialised in determining whether proposed military actions were propitious and in doctoring warriors before battle to protect them from harm and to give them victory.
   
   
4. Rainmakers or Doctors
   - in much of South Africa where droughts are frequent, doctors who specialized in bringing rain were highly regarded (and well paid).
   

African Societies—social aspects

• Infant—from birth until about 1 year. At this stage, the infant is not considered a full person; there would not be an official mourning period if he/she died, although of course there would certainly be private grieving by the mother and the family. Official mourning involved a number of avoidances and restrictions.
  
  
• Child—this is a care-free period with few restraints or discipline until about 5 years or so. There is little difference in treatment of boys or girls.
  
  
• Boy & girl—this is the stage at which sexual differentiation and education begins for future roles as adults; boys become herds and spend most of their days with the older boys looking after cattle while girls assist their mothers, tend the younger children, work in the fields,fetch water, etc. gradually being expected to do more as they grew older.
  
  
• Initiation into adulthood for both sexes—ukwaluka (circumcision) for boys and intonjane for girls. Traditionally, this would take place for boys about 16-18 years, and for girls ideally it should take place at 1st menstruation although in practice it might be later, even after marriage.
  
  - it involved protracted and extensive set of ceremonies, a period of seclusion, instruction, and in the case of the boys, a vivid physical experience (not only the operation itself, but also quite a bit of training and toughening to become warriors). For boys, it could last for up to a year and for girls about a month.
  
  - among the Sotho-Tswana, there was more a group approach of coordinated initiation and even an age-regiment approach, although the latter was not maintained throughout life as in some societies.
  
  - among the Nguni (certainly the southern Nguni), initiation was more localised; a number of boys in a neighbourhood were done together, but there was no coordination over the entire society. It was an honour for a commoner boy to go through it with a chief’s son; when a chief’s son (especially the heir, was approaching initiation), parents of other boys would hold off and many initiations would be held simultaneously. Important families tried to get their sons into the same lodge or ‘school’ as the heir as it was recognised that companions through the ordeal remained close for the rest of their lives and this could make a career. There was not too much overt military training, but the youths were subjected to sparse food and lodging and did some physical exercises, running and dancing. These were believed to toughen the boys.
  
  
  - among the Sotho-Tswana, girls’ initiations were done in groups (similar to age regiments) and there was some parallelism with the boys. However, the process was not so long and there was no physical operation. Female circumcision (clitoridectomy etc.) was not practised by any of the peoples in South Africa.
  
  - among the Nguni, girls’ initiation was more individual, partly because in theory it was to take place at first menses. In practice, it was often delayed (even until after marriage) and 2 or 3 girls might go through it together. Costs may have been a factor and fathers were said to dislike it. It has now virtually disappeared.
  
  - the purpose and emphasis of intonjane was the strengthening of the woman for the rigours ahead, especially child-bearing. This last was her most important role and it was necessary to do everything possible to enable her to do this successfully—to produce healthy children and to survive herself.
  
  - initiation produced a metamorphosis into adulthood and full membership in family and society. The young people became officially eligible for marriage, although this was usually some years off. However, they did begin to ‘sweetheart’ although this courtship was not considered a prelude to engagement and marriage.
  

• Marriage—men often had to wait a number of years before they could marry. Thus, they were often well into their 20s. Young women on the other hand usually married at 15-18 years.
  
  - marriage brought new responsibilities and new standards of decorum. Only at this stage would a man be paid much attention to at ‘indabas’—councils or public meetings. He would also be expected to begin to show more gravity and seriousness, by attending judicial proceedings, by not hanging out with the gang of unmarried men who were sweethearting and sometimes getting into trouble.
  
  - as the young couple would usually live with the husband’s family, the young bride had to be integrated into a new family and she had many responsibilities (we’ll discuss these later). A woman, especially after giving birth, became ‘umfana’—the highest status. She would get her own hut, her own land, and usually her own cattle; her ‘house’ was established. She was subject to many, stringent taboos which relaxed only slowly as she bore children and became slowly integrated into her husband’s family.
  
  
• Middle age or elder
  - men who have shown competence, especially in law, in eloquence and judgment and/or if they have wealth gain great prestige and status. Age is highly respected and most authority and decision-making is controlled by old people (some scholars have even used the term gerontocracy to describe African societies, but that goes too far).
  
  - for women, when their eldest daughter has children or when she reaches menopause, she is finally freed of many long standing taboos and restraints. She has more choices of what to do. She can, e.g., return to her family (although her children stay) or she can remain with the husband’s family. Her most advantageous option is to live with an adult son who has his own homestead; he would never do anything important (or even relatively trivial) without consulting her. She is treated with great deference by her son’s wife or wives and anyone else who lives at the homestead.
  

1. Division of labour between the sexes was very rigid; this assigned most of the work in agriculture to women on top of demanding domestic duties—getting water, getting wood, cooking, looking after children, etc.
   
   - men’s tasks included looking after cattle (boys and young men normally did this), hunting (this disappeared as white hunters depleted game) and judicial/political matters. The most onerous recurring tasks (milking) took only a period early in the morning and in the evening, leaving little to do during the middle of the day. Missionaries regarded this as very unequal and inequitable.
   
   
2. Polygyny—a male with more than 1 wife.
   
   - this was not as widespread as might be supposed. Most men had at most, 1 wife; the requirement to make the large transfer of wealth in lobola (bridewealth) meant that it was difficult for many men to have 1 wife let alone more than 1.
   
   - of the minority who did have more than 1, most had only 2; the usual way that this came about was that later in life, often at the instigation and with the assistance of the 1st wife (she might contribute some of the cattle of her house), a man might marry a 2nd wife. The 1st wife wanted the assistance of a young, second wife.
   
   - only a very tiny minority had more than 2 wives. Normally, these would be acquired as he got older. This was in fact one of the factors that roused the ire of the missionaries—i.e., very old men marrying very young girls (15 or 16 years old).
   
   
3. Lobola (bridewealth)—a transfer of wealth from the bridegroom and/or his family to the family of the bride. In South Africa, lobola was always calculated in cattle (even if payment was made in some other medium—e.g., after the introduction of money, it might be used). The norm was 6-10 cattle.
   
   - note that the flow of wealth was in the opposite direction from dowry in most other cultures; this is significant because daughters are an economic asset rather than a liability as happens elsewhere! We shall return to discuss the nature of lobola after we talk about marriage types and formalities.
   

• a groom’s family was looking for a strong, healthy woman who was likely to bear healthy children and be able to do the work expected of a wife. They were also going to bring the woman into the close relationship of the family so they wanted to know her reputation and temperament. Was she easy to get along with? Was she likely to be compatible with members of the family?
  
  
• the bride’s family wanted to know about the groom and his family. Could they provide for her? What was their reputation? Were they likely to treat her well?
  

1. Regular—this might also be considered the ideal. It was a protracted process.
   
   - a normal marriage involved research into the prospective family and individuals. There had to be search for impediments (incest constraints means that there would have to be checks to determine if there were kinship relationships which would prohibit a marriage).
   
   - negotiations would be initiated in a round about way, often via 3rd parties. There would be visits back and forth, gifts, and hospitality; it could take months. Either family could initiate the process.
   What role did the prospective groom and bride have in arranging a marriage?
   
   • Groom—unless he were an older, established man (and certainly it was case for young men) negotiations and decisions were in the hands of the elders in family. Young men were expected to go along with whatever arrangements were made (few young men would have the resources to arrange a marriage for themselves so the assistance of the family was essential).
     
     - however, there were constraints on the family: If the young man was unhappy with his wife and failed to treat her properly, she could return to her family, and all or much of the lobola would be lost. Thus, families would not normally try to force a man to marry a woman he disliked. Also, in practice, they might even ask him for his preference, and if they could not find a strong reason to oppose that choice, they might try to arrange it.
     
     
   • bride—young girls were even more expected to be obedient to their fathers and families and have even less say than young men. In fact, very strong pressure might be brought to bear on a woman to accept what was arranged for her; this might even include beatings.
     
     - there were constraints here too:
     
     1. Affection—fathers were fond of their daughters; if she cried and pleaded enough, the father would often give way.
        
     2. A girl’s mother had to give her permission; thus, if a girl could persuade her mother, a proposed match could be vetoed.
        
     3. The lobola problem—if a girl was unhappy, she could sabotage the marriage. If it were her fault that the marriage failed, then the lobola might have to be returned and this could create a great deal of trouble.
        
     - it is said that if a girl were absolutely opposed to a marriage and was determined enough, she could in fact usually avoid it.
     

2. Elopement/abduction
   
   - there were shortcuts which cut out many of the preliminaries. Elopement would take place when the girl went with her prospective husband to his family’s homestead. Immediately, emissaries would be sent to initiate negotiations. Once things had been precipitated in this way, it would give great offence to refuse such a marriage. Once an agreement was reached, the girl would return home, but the marriage ceremonies and the girl’s move to the groom’s family homestead would be completed relatively quickly.
   
   - in abduction, the groom and some of his friends/family members would abduct the girl and take her to his family’s homestead. Often the ‘abduction’ would be arranged with the assistance of the girl’s father (it would reduce expenses). As above, only very serious objections would allow either family to refuse to carry out the marriage.
   
   
3. ‘Sadie Hawkins’ solution
   
   - marriage was the highest status for any woman, but what about women who never received any offers? This was a means for such women who wanted to be married to force it.
   
   - she would go outside of a rich man’s homestead, sit down; when asked what she wanted, she would refuse to speak. Eventually, the members of the household would understand what she wanted and invite her in. It was difficult for a rich man to refuse as everyone would regard it as mean and stingy. Arrangements would follow the pattern as in (2) above, except that the lobola was less.
   
   - the husband need never have too much to do with her. If she had lovers, the children would be regarded as his anyway. However, she was entitled to have a hut and her own ‘house’.
   

• she could remain with the husband’s family and take lovers (the levirate was not a customary right in South Africa but it could be a brother), but the children would be regarded as those of the dead husband.
  
• she could return to her family.
  
• she could stay with a son, especially if he had established his own homestead.
  

• Insurance aspects—it could be seen as a good behaviour bond which was forfeited if the husband treated her badly.
  
  - a woman could demand assistance from those who had benefited (fathers, brothers, etc.). Most family would help anyway, but this claim was enforceable in the chief’s court.
  
  
• Exclusive sexual rights
  - lobola did imply this, but it was frequently evaded. It was not uncommon for wives to have lovers and often the husband’s mother might help to conceal it (this is where female solidarity was invoked). Of course, there was a double standard as there were no restrictions on men.
  
  - a man who caught his wife might get away with beating her (almost the only case), although he could not injure her; his main recourse was to sue the lover. In fact, some men even encouraged their wives, pointing out candidates in order to charge the lovers and get cattle.
  
  - adultery was not a cause of divorce as children were the husband’s anyway.
  
  
• Right to labour of the woman
  - this explanation has been given by some anthropologists and was the explanation most often given by Africans themselves. Just as a woman was becoming an adult and thus a full-fledged producer, she was married and went off to join her husband’s family; therefore, lobola was compensation for the loss of her labour and her contributions. As Africans often expressed it, as compensation for all the trouble and expense of raising the woman. The husband’s family were getting the benefits without having incurred the costs.
  
  
• Child-bearing capacity
  - this is the explanation favoured by most anthropologists. In view of the importance of children and the strong desire to perpetuate the family by providing new members, a woman’s child-bearing capacity was very valuable and highly prized. Lobola was compensation to the bride’s family for the loss of her child-bearing, reproductive capacity; it was important also in that it provided a means to secure a replacement for her.
  
  - it is supported by a couple of other facts. If there were children, lobola was not returned either when a wife died or there was a divorce. The children belonged to the husband and his family and were considered ample return for lobola. Also, if a woman failed to produce a child, the husband’s family could demand a return of the lobola or a replacement wife (often a sister) be sent.
  
  
• Glue for African marriage
  - this was also an important function. Payment of lobola gave both families a stake in the marriage and its success. breakdowns and divorce created endless tangles and difficulties, tracing cows over several years, plus their increase or death, etc. These were the most complex and difficult court cases to resolve.
  
  - thus family members on both sides would have an interest in maintaining the marriage; the husband’s family would work to control his behaviour and treatment of the wife; the wife’s family would try to persuade her to stay or to return if they thought she was frivolous and likely to be blamed for a breakdown.
  
  - this was an aspect that the missionaries were ultimately forced to recognise; men who had not paid lobola often did not regard their obligations as seriously and were more likely to desert; by the end of the 19th C, many missionaries were having 2nd thoughts about trying to abolish lobola.
  
  
• Morality check
  - families were concerned that a girl not become pregnant before marriage and mothers kept a close eye on their daughters. Late in the 19th C some missionaries came to see this as a beneficial effect of lobola when pregnancies among unmarried girls was rising among the church families.
  

• married life for African women was very rigorous and women were expected to work very hard; there were many irksome constraints socially on wives, especially in the early years.
  
  
• however, the lot of working class women in Britain at the same time was often very poor; comparisons with African women are perhaps more appropriate and not at all so unfavourable for African societies. Working class women in Britain often had to do the household chores (and the division of labour between the sexes was as rigid as in Africa) and as well work outside the house in factories, as servants, in the fields, etc. There were few protections and wife-battering was very common and accepted. In a debate in the 1890s, a 3rd generation missionary defending lobola argued that it should be introduced to Britain as a means of saving women there from much abuse. Another missionary complained about the poor husbands in Africa who had to kowtow to their wives or they would run home complaining of being treated badly and the poor husband had to go grovelling with presents to his in-laws to get her to come back. This complaint that African wives were too free and had too much power, of course, was a contradiction of the more usual claim that they were little more than chattels bought and sold for cattle.
  
  
• in Africa, it was considered a disgrace if a man got his wife pregnant before she had finished nursing a previous child, which usually continued for about 2 years. It was regarded as unhealthy and endangering both women and children to have pregnancies oftener. Thus, births were spaced about 3 years apart. In Europe in the working classes especially, it was common for a woman to have one pregnancy after another until she died, exhausted and worn out. One missionary in discussing polygyny claimed that it wasn’t even ‘efficient’ in producing children; many men in Europe with only one wife produced more children than African polygynists with 2 or 3!
  
  
• in regard to social and physical constraints, even middle and upper class women in Britain were closely hemmed in. Corsets, hooped skirts and bustles literally tied women up; social taboos prevented them from getting much exercise (this was a major focus of the female emancipation movement in the last 30 years of the 19th C—to gain freedom to ride bicycles, play tennis etc.); there were long confinements during pregnancies when women were supposed to withdraw from most social activities.