Tycho Prouse

HST 303
Dr. Lundry
June 22, 2023

The Woman’s Role: Disparities Between Pre-Colonial and Colonial Southeast Asia

In this essay, I will use two readings, one from Anthony Reid and the other
Shawna Herzog, to compare the drastic differences in gender roles, specifically the
woman’s role, between pre-colonial Southeast Asia and colonial Southeast Asia when
occupied by the British. In Professor Lundry’s, The British in Southeast Asia, lecture, he
stated that British rule in Malaya greatly changed the economy and society. This
statement is reflected in Shawna Herzog’s, Domesticating Labor: An Illicit Slave Trade
to The British Strait Settlements, 1811-1845; where Herzog discussed the
domestication of labor that stemmed from the British’s fundamental belief that women
were destined to serve men. In stark contrast to that inherently European ideal, Anthony
Reid encapsulated how women were viewed as an important and essential part of pre-
colonial Southeast Asian economy and society in his work, A History of Southeast Asia:
Critical Crossroads.

Looking first at British colonialism at the turn if the nineteenth century, Herzog
stated that although British Parliament passed the Felony Slave Trade Act in 1811, the
Parliament and the British East India Company were hardly concerned with the trade of
non-European slaves. The majority of these non-European slaves consisted of women
and girls being trafficked for domestic and sexual labor in and along the Strait
Settlements. Herzog went into greater detail about the justification for the overlook of
illegal slave trade, explaining that British officials held the firm belief that “the control of
women’s bodies fundamentally belonged to the men of that society,” to exploit and
control as they saw fit. An idea that Herzog mentioned, which is also mentioned in
Reid’s work, is the idea of two separate societal “spheres” in which gender roles were
divided; one for men and the other for women. The first, dominant, sphere was where
the men existed and thrived. They played the more public role of being the employed
bread-winner, dealing with commerce and politics - things that women should stay out
of. The second, lesser, sphere was where the women were confined. Herzog said
Europeans viewed white women as “domestic angels,” meant to maintain the “man's”
home and take care of the children whilst also serving the purpose to “rejuvenate the
man’s spirit.” As is common knowledge, British colonial ideals devalued the woman’s
role and viewed their work as non-essential while maintaining the notion that they were
still integral to a healthy and productive society because they served a purpose to men.
Of course, this idea was strictly for white European women. They viewed non-European
women with far less respect than white women, their already diminishing view of
European women making it easy for them to ignore illegal slave trade that “greatly”
benefitted male soldiers and sea men throughout the Straits Settlements; because
without the trafficking of women and girls, men might seek sexual pleasure from each
other and the British feared that.
 Next, delving into Reid’s work, the idea of societal “spheres” looked vastly
different for men and women in pre-colonial Southeast Asia than during British
colonialism. While the sphere was still divided among genders, it still expressed more
balanced roles and economic autonomy for both women and men. The sphere where
the men lived, “consisted of all things pertaining to metals and large animals, including
hunting, plowing, metalwork, felling trees, and opening new land” (Reid, 24). Now, in
stark contrast to British colonial belief, the women’s sphere in pre-colonial Southeast
Asia was deemed as “essential for transplanting and harvesting rice, growing
vegetables, weaving, and in most cases making pottery” (Reid, 24). There is still a bit of
disparity between the roles described in pre=colonial times, as women were tasked with
more home-based roles while men were tasked with the dangers of hunting - but here
women are held in an equal light. However, the biggest differences can be seen in the
marital aspects of pre-colonial Southeast Asia. Where British colonialism had women
maintaining the man's home, Reid explained that in pre-colonial Southeast Asia marital
property was held jointly and women were actually expected to control the household
income and manage the marketing while their husbands were out galavanting the
streets. Another huge difference between the women’s roles is that pre-colonial
southeast Asian women dominated commercial transactions. According to Reid, women
were able to create bonds of kinship and reciprocity within their community, as well as
bring knowledge of the market and marketing that a foreign man could never have. This
ability allowed some pre-colonial Southeast Asian women to become major commercial
figures and even ship owners, an achievement that women of British colonialism could
only dream of.

In conclusion, Herzog’s work displayed the cruel and unfortunate reality of

Southeast Asian women and girls based on the British idea that women were destined
to serve men. The limiting confines of these two separate societal spheres resulted in
the horrible, inhumane treatment of women and girls in Southeast Asia, where as the
overlapping societal spheres of pre-colonial Southeast Asia discussed in Reid’s work,
allowed women their own autonomy and a deeper, more respected position within their
communities.
 Works Cited

Reid, Anthony. A History of Southeast Asia: Critical Crossroads. First Edition, John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2015.

Herzog, Shawna. "Domesticating Labor: An Illicit Slave Trade to The British Straits
Settlements, 1811–1845." Journal of World History, vol. 28 no. 3, 2017, p. 341-369.
Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/jwh.2017.0035..

Lundry, Christopher. “The British in Southeast Asia.” History 303, Empires in Southest
Asia, Canvas, 20 June 2023, lecture.