Difference between revisions of "Week 9 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
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 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Just a quick thought to the question of to what extent people where discussing "equality of the sexes" and where, I think that perhaps they did it in a similar fashion that we saw in the letters of Abigail Adams. As Christopher says, entertaining the idea as sort of fiction, toying with the idea but not necessarily having substance behind the discussion. But in the same matter, I'd also like to think that there were those revolutionaries who took it, or wanted to take it, that one step further into a serious discussion. -- Vanessa Smiley | ||
