On a whole, you are correct... however.... There were womyn, other than
school mistresses that did have jobs. It was by no means a common practice,
but womyn ran/owned shops, were seamstresses, cooks, maids, household
servants, they worked in debtors prisons and orphanages, in short, womyn did
indeed have jobs. If I remember the statistics right, something like 38
percent of womyn in 19th century England held jobs. The upper class (where
Dickinson was), had a much lower percentage. Something around 6.5 percent,
but still, it was possible. In the United States, the numbers were even
higher. Emily Dickinson even held a job on her one for a while. If memory
serves, she worked in a ladies dress shop. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Becca
Dreams Are Born In The Heart And Mind, And Only There Can They Ever Die
remember Narnia, wonderland, MiddleEarth, and Never Never Land, and you
shall truly never die.
Peace Be With Thee and Blessed Be
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Smith <jrfss@CLASSIC.MSN.COM>
To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU <FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Date: Sunday, November 09, 1997 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know
It?
>THe problem with the Emily Dickenson analogy...is that in the 19th
>century...women didn't have the luxury of having a job to pay the rent and
one
>to do for fun. Women had children, stayed home, and did womanly things.
>Emily couldn't even go out and get a job, (well maybe schoolmistress or
some
>such designated job...as long as it conformed to womens work) let alone
have
>an identity. WOmen were largely dependent upon the males. Think "Sense
and
>Sensibility." If you didn't have a father, you were married off, or went
to
>live with an uncle. Writing for many women was their way of expressing
>themselves in a confining patriarchal structure. (SO nothing has changed
;)
>Julien
>
>----------
>From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on
behalf
>of Vonda N. McIntyre
>Sent: Sunday, November 09, 1997 3:05 AM
>To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as
We
> Know It?
>
>Hi Nina,
>
>I guess an eternal question of writing is the art
>v. business aspect.
>
>A benefit of success is that it allows you to
>continue doing what you like to do. Did Emily
>Dickinson ever have to worry where the next rent
>payment was coming from? (Or, if she did, did she
>have any reasonable hope of helping contribute to
>it, by publishing her poetry or in any other way?
>I don't know enough about her or the period she
>was living in to make even an educated guess.)
>
>Those of us who write tie-in novels have to put up
>with the occasional sneer down the nose from a
>certain small subset of our colleagues, who are of
>the opinion that we should go out and get honest
>jobs -- that the world in general and sf in
>particular would be better off, and that we
>ourselves would be behaving in a more honorable
>manner. Most of the sneerers, I note, are not
>among those who have to worry particularly about
>paying the rent.
>
>Vonda
>
>On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:30:12 -0500, "Nina M. Osier"
><mbarron@MINT.NET> wrote:
>
>>Vonda, thank you for posting your "rant" after all! I do wish I had
>>some ideas on how to change the larger world's perception of SF. I
>>never cease to be amazed by the otherwise intelligent people who still
>>regard speculative fiction of any type as something for adolescent boys
>>only.
>>
>>Speaking as someone still in the process of breaking in, I am also
>>saddened that the measure of success in this as in every other field of
>>endeavor has to be "how much money have you made by doing it." That's
>>our society, I accept it as it is; but it's still pitiful. How much
>>money did Emily Dickinson make...?
>>
>>Nina
>
>http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda
>Some official good news at
>http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:09 PDT