Difference between revisions of "Week 9 Questions/Comments"

I thought that Sarah Ayer's journal and life were really sad.  She lost her first four children, then later her husband, then her home, was separated from her children (who gave her more grief, especially Samuel), moved in with her husbands relatives who she didnt want to live with and all at the age of 40.  Then she and her youngest child would die of scarlet fever! Two things were interesting to me though, outside of everything else. Why did she keep moving from house to house? Did no one family want her for very long? Also what happened to the idea of sons being in some way responsible for their widowed mother? If he was old enough to leave home he was old enough to help her. Also what was Sarah doing, why was she away from home? --Mary P.

I thought that Sarah Ayer's journal and life were really sad.  She lost her first four children, then later her husband, then her home, was separated from her children (who gave her more grief, especially Samuel), moved in with her husbands relatives who she didnt want to live with and all at the age of 40.  Then she and her youngest child would die of scarlet fever! Two things were interesting to me though, outside of everything else. Why did she keep moving from house to house? Did no one family want her for very long? Also what happened to the idea of sons being in some way responsible for their widowed mother? If he was old enough to leave home he was old enough to help her. Also what was Sarah doing, why was she away from home? --Mary P.

Woloch mentions the new ideal of romantic love as the reason to marry made some more hesitant to marry. From my family class last semester we learned that many nineteenth-century women went through a “marriage trauma,” worrying about what would happen if a spouse did not live up to their hopes and high ideals.  Because of this singlehood therefore rose, the insistence that marriage should be based on love implied that it's immoral to marry for other reasons and that marriage based on love/companionship spurred some to call for more liberal divorce laws.  Maybe this was a bit later in the century though.  --Alex K.

Woloch mentions the new ideal of romantic love as the reason to marry made some more hesitant to marry. From my family class last semester we learned that many nineteenth-century women went through a “marriage trauma,” worrying about what would happen if a spouse did not live up to their hopes and high ideals.  Because of this singlehood therefore rose, the insistence that marriage should be based on love implied that it's immoral to marry for other reasons and that marriage based on love/companionship spurred some to call for more liberal divorce laws.  Maybe this was a bit later in the century though.  --Alex K.

If a person today were to ask the common middle class wife during the early 1800s about the 'equality of the sexes,' I wonder if her response would be like Beecher's, who wrote"THe discussion of the question of the equality of the sexes, in intellectual capacity, seems both frivolous and useless, not only because it can never be decided, but because there would be no possible advantage in the decision." (pg 148).  I guess people were discussing this topic, albeit in an 'intellectual capacity,' but to what extent were people discussing it, and where?  I assume they just entertained the idea as a sort of fiction, or dream-like possibility.  Its interesting to see that she would write there would be no possible advantage in an equality, certainly it tells me that the conception of a society of equality really didn't make much sense to her.  Also, in the intro to her section, there was slight discussion of the 'professionalisation' of being a housewife, a notion that is occasionally seen today.  I've heard some people trying to estimate how much money a modern housewife would earn if she was paid, and its always some high amount.  Harriet Farley made an interesting observation about life in the mill: "You ask if the girls are contented here: I ask you, ifyou now of any one who is perfectly contented."  (pg 179).  I guess thats all she knows, and for her, there might not be much point in imagining it to be any better.  -Christopher Plummer

If a person today were to ask the common middle class wife during the early 1800s about the 'equality of the sexes,' I wonder if her response would be like Beecher's, who wrote"THe discussion of the question of the equality of the sexes, in intellectual capacity, seems both frivolous and useless, not only because it can never be decided, but because there would be no possible advantage in the decision." (pg 148).  I guess people were discussing this topic, albeit in an 'intellectual capacity,' but to what extent were people discussing it, and where?  I assume they just entertained the idea as a sort of fiction, or dream-like possibility.  Its interesting to see that she would write there would be no possible advantage in an equality, certainly it tells me that the conception of a society of equality really didn't make much sense to her.  Also, in the intro to her section, there was slight discussion of the 'professionalisation' of being a housewife, a notion that is occasionally seen today.  I've heard some people trying to estimate how much money a modern housewife would earn if she was paid, and its always some high amount.  Harriet Farley made an interesting observation about life in the mill: "You ask if the girls are contented here: I ask you, ifyou now of any one who is perfectly contented."  (pg 179).  I guess thats all she knows, and for her, there might not be much point in imagining it to be any better.  -Christopher Plummer