>No bubble burst here. Look at what I said below...you have confirmed my
>point...
>well maybe schoolmistress or
>some
>>such designated job...as long as it conformed to womens work) let alone
>have
>>an identity.
> WOmen may have been able to work, but they still did what were
traditionally
>"women's work"
> I'm not a dog with a bone...really.
>
>I do see your point...though and will concede on this discussion. One
>question I have though, didn't a few women write under male names? I think
>(if E.m.Forster can be trusted) that women had to stick to writing things
like
>romances (remember Miss Lavish) or adventure stories with a romantic
element
>to them? Many other writers who wanted to write something outside that
league
>took male pseudonymes...like George Sand and George Eliot.
>Julien
>
Oh, you are absolutely correct; womyn did do "womyn's work", but they did
support their families by doing the best they could in a bad situation.
Feminism is not a new thing, it is simply that when a lady is busy trying to
keep a job, feed her family, and raise children, she does not have time to
march, and protest. The suffragists were the womyn of the upper class, they
were wealthy womyn with time on their hands. This does not mean that the
working womyn did not want the right to vote, they were just to busy earning
13 cents on the dollar to feed their families with.
Many female writers did take on male pseudonyms. They made more money this
way, and had a greater chance of being published. I was simply saying that
womyn could and often did work, not by choice, but by necessity.
Becca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:11 PDT