It felt almost like they were imprisoned in the domestic environment by their Masters who were men. However, times were changing and the women’s view of the world was changing as well. Age of Enlightenment brought a new understanding of the world which emphasized the importance of human intellectual abilities over material wealth as key to success. People started to question
They worked hard for what they believed in. In the begging of the book Berkin talked about how the main role of a women was to do as her husband told her to. Since the husbands had control on what they did and when they did it the women/ wives did not have rights such as, independence for themselves nor any say so on what was going on. While most women had no right some women did. The ones who did not marry could do as they pleased.
Don Elias didn’t go out and make an honest living. He was only respected by the people around him because they feared him. Dona Matilida was not seen as an equal partner in the relationship. She was more of a servant to Don Elias. I believe that when they first got married there was some kind of love in their relationship, but when they realized they could not conceive a child Don Elias blamed his wife.
With only having the job as a “happy homemaker” woman in the 1950’s felt dissatisfaction and needed fulfillment in their life other than staying home, and taking care of their families. Consequently, in the play The Crucible by Arthur Miller women were portrayed almost the same way. They both were treated poorly and held a position of that inferior to men. Because, women in the Crucible held no real power or independence they were forced to follow the negative stereotypes of the 1950’s. Women in the 1950’s were expected to stay home, and were more or less left out of everything that were to be of importance.
How do we take responsibility for ourselves or others? In the short story, “The Veldt”, the house takes responsibility for the family and not the parents. Since they let this happen, the children ended up disobeying them and the parents need to learn from that in order to keep control and restore balance into their life. In the end, it is the parent’s faults that they let their control slowly slip away and let the children have freedom in the nursery. Since they let their responsibility go, the house replaced the parents which made the children feel that the house is their parents.
Women carry out the triple burden in the household; the domestic labour, emotional labour, and paid labour. As shown in the item most of this work is ‘unpaid and hardly recognised work at all’. Oakley argues the only way women will gain independence and freedom in society is for the role of the housewife to be removed aswell as the present structure of the family. Wilmott and Young believed the family is symmetrical and that both husband and wife have joint conjugal roles making the family a functional institution and their research showed that men do help women with housework. Radical feminists such as Dobash and Dobash also disagree with Willmott and Young’s theory that the family is symmetrical.
As a result of this, social mobility was limited at this time and people socialised in small circles, with only those of a similar class. Any socialisation out of this was seen as absurd. It was women especially that felt the limitations of the late 18th century/early 19th century, as there were strict expectations of them. Women were seen as possessions of men, and expected to be educated and well behaved, mostly in hope to ensure themselves a husband of wealth in order to further themselves as women did not inherit any land or money from their fathers, this went to the closest male relative. Any kind of acting out of against the expected image of a woman would be seen as shameful and would lead to isolation even further in terms of socialisation and the hope of a husband.
The role of women does demonstrate bystanders and supporters of their husbands and family member. Women are treated as bystanders and supporters of their husbands and family members. They are treated very harsh, and cannot do any type of job. They are supposed to be dependent on their husbands, while they maintain their house, and their children. They have a very important role but, in Waknuk it is not important.
but these nervous troubles are dreadfully depressing” (Gilman 2). The author is using a semi-autobiographical technique to show that the narrator was being left in the house for the whole day and she was not supposed to do anything. However when John was out for work for the whole day, she could write how much ever she wants because no one was there to stop her. When the narrator explains that she writes when her husband is not at home that shows gender role because she is hiding it from her husband. She is hiding it from her husband because he didn’t let her write anything or do anything, because in Victorian times, women had less opportunity than men.
“As a result of this attitude, wives seldom worked at outside jobs,” Benner stated (Benner pg.1). Some women tried to have a job out of rebelliousness or some just desperately needed a job because their husband could not maintain a well enough paying job. Women weren’t sought out to be the type person who would get a job and provide for the family. The man of the house was supposed to do that. That was the norm, the norm was that the man of the house was the one who was to protect his family, provide for his family, and be there for his family.