Stephen Smith wrote:
> 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.
<Snip>
Women have always worked both inside and outside the home. When we
think of women in a Jane Austen novel, we are thinking of white
women of a particularly priveledged class.
While a widespread lack of education, voting rights and access to
the public sector of the culture was no picnic, work relegated to
poorer women and men (washing and pressing other people's clothes,
cleaning their houses and/or performing farm and factory work) could
be deadly.
Most women of color had even fewer choices and received lower
pay.
Amazingly, women were (and are!) writing and creating despite difficult
conditions. Stories crafted and retold for generations, essays,
novels, sculpture, poetry and gardens. . .
I feel fortunate.
Lindy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:09 PDT