Difference between revisions of "426--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Tuesday"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
Throughout Tuesday’s readings we see the American family struggle with the paradox between individualism and intimacy that relied on others. The emergence of marriages based on love bred intimacy yet as outlined in American Manhood, marriage was a union of two individuals who struggled to live as two and not as one. With the introduction of expectations of intimacy and changing roles in marriages men found refuge outside the home in men’s clubs and women struggled to become comfortable in their assigned roles of domesticity as a married woman. The family was not exempt from this struggle. Mintz and Kellogg came to define the family of the 1830s as “a private place, distinct from the public sphere of life. It was a shelter and a refuge, a contrast to the outside world, (p. 44).” And while job specialization, industrialization, and changes in child rearing shifted the focus on the individual, a focus on intimate, personal relationships between husband and wife and parent and child emerged to create a focus on intimacy within the family. The emotional and psychological emphasis on relationships and child development, while yes focusing on the needs of the individual, could not ignore the fact that the family still heavily depended upon intimacy and ultimately others to function. – Mary Beth | Throughout Tuesday’s readings we see the American family struggle with the paradox between individualism and intimacy that relied on others. The emergence of marriages based on love bred intimacy yet as outlined in American Manhood, marriage was a union of two individuals who struggled to live as two and not as one. With the introduction of expectations of intimacy and changing roles in marriages men found refuge outside the home in men’s clubs and women struggled to become comfortable in their assigned roles of domesticity as a married woman. The family was not exempt from this struggle. Mintz and Kellogg came to define the family of the 1830s as “a private place, distinct from the public sphere of life. It was a shelter and a refuge, a contrast to the outside world, (p. 44).” And while job specialization, industrialization, and changes in child rearing shifted the focus on the individual, a focus on intimate, personal relationships between husband and wife and parent and child emerged to create a focus on intimacy within the family. The emotional and psychological emphasis on relationships and child development, while yes focusing on the needs of the individual, could not ignore the fact that the family still heavily depended upon intimacy and ultimately others to function. – Mary Beth | ||
| + | |||
| + | I also agree that the chapter on Marriage in the American Manhood article was interesting. I was struck by the fact that women were seen as moral guides and therefore "superior" to men in matters of moral behavior. Yet because of this their spouses often spent a lot of time away from them to avoid the structure and moral rigidity of the home. It is very contradictory to be afraid of what you expect your wife to be. I also found the discussion of male and female societies and clubs to be very interesting as I had never considered them to have been viewed by some as a replacement for the home. Overall, I felt that this was a very informative article but that many of their examples seemed to highlight the outliers and not the "typical" couple of the nineteenth century. --Sarah Gardner | ||
