You are now ready to post your blog for Great Expectations. Be sure you proof read what you are about to post. Remember that this is the criteria for your blog.
During the course of your research, you must post three (3) weblog entries on your topic’s website.Each entry should have:
a. some pertinent information on your topic
b. your reaction to the information
c. a citation of the source of your information
d. a relevant question to your audience (other members of the same topic group in your class and other classes and your teachers)
e. your name and group number
You must also comment on three (3) other postings in the weblog. You might answer the question that is asked, mention information you found elsewhere that either adds to or contradicts the information cited in that post, or suggest how you will use that information in your group’s presentation or handout.
If you are the first person to post, you will be expected to post all nine of your comments at some point during this project. If you have any questions or concerns, be sure you ask these during class or address it on this page so your classmates can help answer them.
Click on comments below to enter your blog.
140 comments:
Hello
This is katy hill
-Katy Hill
Man... tara is really a suck up. Serioiusly!! She smell good though. Kinda like peaches:)
hello ms.gaare! you are the greatest ever! this assingnment totally rocks my socks...good choice! anywho...your rock..talk to you in like 30 seconds from now...adios! tara
ps. sam is really mean and he does not smell like peaches!
Hey Katy
Can i publish two comments?
Eh, ms. gaare.. this is kafrin mae-mckenzie hardy!! yo my favorite teacher fo eva eva eva!!! lol.. : ) mmm me talk to you lata.. peace out!!
Three maybe?
Ok i stop at four!!!!
Jk five is better than four. Hi Nicole!!
hey everyone, i found an excellent book on victorian life. : ) in the library at school it's call number is 942.081 f68, it's by sally mitchell and the name of it is Daily Life In Victorian England. good luck everyone. <3kathrin hardy
"The poor conditions in schools simply made their health even worse. Sometimes, teachers were attacked by angry parents. They shouted that their children should be at work earning money, not wasting time at school. Teachers in rough areas had to learn to box!"
http://www.nettlesworth.durham.sch.uk/time/victorian/vschool.html
i think it is amazing that some parents would let their anger get the best of them. No matter how bad conditions were for their children, no parent was authorized to physically abuse a teacher. Teachers were most likely dong the best they could.
Charles Dickens (1812-1870) was a writer of short-stories, plays, novellas, novels, fiction, and non-fiction. He was a brilliant writer and based many of his characters experiences from his own. Characters like Oliver Twist, David Copperfield, and Philip Pirrip were much like Dickens himself. Dickens was a master of telling about his characters. He was known as the spokesman of the poor because many of his stories were about social class. Dickens was a great writer of morals and values during the Victorian Era. Ian Shaw -- uh huh u kno how i do
hey again...on my december 12th, 2006 9:47 AM comment i forgot to ask you all a question...what do you think of the harrassment of the teachers? right or wrong? and my group is numba three and my name is --tara--c ya!
Okay so group... ummm...4 I think. Has like Victorian women roles and everything and I found a website, so hopefully you'll like it k.
http://caxton.stockton.edu/browning/stories/storyReader$3
There you go, hope I'm helping someone.
- Mikayla
Tara's first entry is a good example of an academic question. Everyone should have three that look similar to this. Also remember to choose three to comment on.
This is a comment on Tara's post about parents' anger --
It angers me that parents could not controll their anger. I think that this kind of thing still happens today. A parent acting violently is a bad example for their child. This can continue a "legacy", if you will, of violent behavior because the child will grow up acting like their parents. The parent needs to deal with their problem, through counceling or such things, instead of letting out their anger through the child.
“Influential thinkers included John Stuart Mill, the great liberal scholar and philosopher; Thomas Henry Huxley, a scientist and popularizer of Darwinian theory; and John Henry, Cardinal Newman, who wrote earnestly of religion, philosophy, and education. The founders of Communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, researched and wrote their books in the free environment of England.”
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/ent/A0858005.html
I think it is amazing that the free environment of the Victorian era gave way to the ideals of communism and Darwinism. Perhaps a free environment is a breeding ground for new ideas, both good and bad. I wonder what other types of ideals came from the Victorian era??
-Mauro Whiteman
This is a comment on Mario's post:
I can see that today a free environment does both encourage good and bad ideas. I found this post very interesting and it made me think. I can why ideals such as communism, fascism, and socialism came about. People may have been scared of ideas that came about in a free environment. Mario's post definately opened my mind to new ideas, and thinking.
This is a comment on Tara's teacher learning how to box. I think that is interesting because even in this day and age, parents are unable to control their anger. Roudy parents at football games pummel refs for bad calls. It happens more and more often in the Information Age, and it also happened back in the Victorian Age.
-Mauro Whiteman
“The Victorian era was the great age of the English novel—realistic, thickly plotted, crowded with characters, and long. It was the ideal form to describe contemporary life and to entertain the middle class. The novels of Charles Dickens, full to overflowing with drama, humor, and an endless variety of vivid characters and plot complications, nonetheless spare nothing in their portrayal of what urban life was like for all classes.”
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/ent/A0858005.html
I think it is amazing that the novel was literally invented during the Victorian Age. I wonder what people wrote about before the novel and, especially, what people read. The novel is practically the only thing people read nowadays. This is interesting.
-Mauro Whiteman
I don't agree with beating phisically on teachers for not properly educating my children, but they better be ready for a firm verbal abuse. group three sam
this is a comment of mauro's victorian novel post...i think that it is so cool that charles dickens made his novels to suit the interests of the middle class. i bet that most books before the victorian era were more suited to the upper class, just because the upper class was probably writing them, because they obviously had a better education. this is where my subject comes in. education started becoming more suited for the middle/working class during the victorian era, thus, more of that class was being educated. that explains why most of the novels were targeted towards the middle class. tara! group three
Hey Tara i think this is how you respond to someone else. I think that it is wrong for teachers to be punished for trying to help the kids try to have a better life. But also the kids were there to help the family make money so it kinda makes sence that they would take it out on the teachers. But they did have total control of the kids why not just pull them out and tell them not to go any more, and if they did go again punish them instead of the teachers.
"If a family was high on the social scale, girls might have a series of governesses . . .She also helped them learn how to draw, play the piano, and sing - these skills (known as "accomplishments") were important both for social life and as a means of lifelong recreation."
Sally Mitchell, Daily Life in Victorian England, United States of America, Greenwood Press, 1996
Wow. how is it that people really thought that singing and playing the piano were a girl's greatest "accomplishments"? i guess that people in the victorian era thought that those types of things were the only things that girls were capable of achieving in life. in my opinion, girls should have been learning more useful things that actually made them smarter, not just better socialists or wives.that is definately a big difference between today's schooling and the victorian era's schooling. im just glad that i get to learn what i do. ~tara~ group three!
jade: commenting on Tara's last blog about it being unfair that women did not recieve a proper education in the Victorian Era. I disagree with this statement merely because of the fact that, in that time, learning how to cook, clean, play piano, and host parties was proper education for the women. In that culture, the women were to cook, look after the kids, and be hostesses. They did not need to be able to compute algebraic expressions or learn how to write. It was simply unnecessary and a waste of time. Sure, some strong-willed women of that time did learn how to read, write, and contribute to society, but that was in the minority. My main point is that it would have been a waste of time to gain a 'proper' education if they couldn't use it, as in a job or vocation. What they did learn helped them and their families to live fairly comfortable lives.
Oops! New to the blogging thing. I wasn't finished yet. Bottom line is women did have jobs: wives. Their job was to be a good wife. What were the skills needed to be a good wife in this age? Cooking, cleaning, hosting, and looking after the children. They recieved all the education they needed to live out a happy and fulfilling life.
I'm Jade Klette and, Quite frankly...that's all you need.
This is a comment on Jade's comment on Tara's post on women education. Women don't deserve rights. They should just stay home, learn the piano, and cook. Why can't they just be happy with that?
-Mauro Whiteman
P.S. I'm just kidding but I think this would be a good debate-starter.
Mauro you better be kidding about that! Women have just as much of a right to do anything that men do. I know for a fact that I am smarter than many guys, along with other girls. My perspective is that we were all created equally, and men have nothing up on women and therefore should not get any more, or better rights than them. There are many women that hold high rank positions in our society, higher than men. I think you should consider that before you make comments about womens role in society.
p.s. I am better at piano than you.
p.p.s. I am not yelling, just debating like you said.
~C-MAC~
University School of Medicine,was one of the first co-ed skills, where men and women were accepeted equaly into the colloge. www.search.eb.com/women/timeline, then click on the victorian era.
i think that it is cool that people were starting to except the fact that people were equale and were working together. What do you think about the equality??
Good job so far. The debate on women is going well so far. Be careful to remain respectful debaters!
I feel I have to get in on this women's debate. I totally agree with Courtney and not just because I'm female. She made good points. There's the thought that women should simply stay home and do that business BUT... think what girls do for the men.
1) we give birth to children like every 10 seconds
2) child labor is PAIN
3) then we breast feed
5) our hips expand, and that isn't that fun
6) stretch marks
7) our stomach looks like the Pillsbury Dough Boy's tummy
8) we have horrible mood swings
9) acne
10) then we have to put up with guys picking fun at us because of how we look
I hope that's good enough, most of that has to do with what YOU guys do to girls. Happy debating!!
-Mikayla Rae
On Tara's first entry I think the harassment of teachers is wrong the parents should take their children out of school if they don't want them in there, and not attack the parents, they should control themselves, and talk to the teacher. Today you see adults harassing children and other adults it's not right. Hi Ms.Gaare!
-Jessica Kubiak
Sorry i made a mistake it should read ' the parents should not attack the teachers.'
-Jessica Kubiak
"During the Victorian age in Colonial New England women took labor jobs like working on airplanes, making war weapons, and in factories since the men weren't there." Do you think the women would have been able to take labor jobs like working in factories even if the men weren there?
http://www.lc.arizona.edu/ic/mcbride/ws200/hold.htm
I think the women would not have been able to work in factories or because the men had pride working in factories, men did not want women working by them. Men thought that laobr work was for men and not women.
-Jessica Kubiak
I'm commenting on katy's question. I think it is awsome that that medical shool had men and women working there equally! Hi Katy!
-Jessica Kubiak
Hi, amber are you ging to answer mine?
later -jess
I have to comment about this whole women's educations debate. The idea off women not having an education was a belief that all had been taught since birth. They didn't see anything wrong with a woman not getting an education, just her accomplishments to get her a husband with money to support her. I don't think that this is a subject that anyone of today can comment on because we were not taught these beliefs or raised in these situations.
Now y'all have fun debating some more!
-Amber Cartwright
I agree with Jessica on her post about women working in factories that women were not allowed to work in factories because of a pride issue on the man's part. I think you see this everyday in places such as work, sports, or even school. I ideas are not accepted because people can not stand for someone else to be better than them.
-Amber Cartwright
p.s. Jess are you happy now?
p.s.s. Y'all all have fun this weekend.
Ian -- This is a comment on Mikayla's comment on Courtney's comment about Mauro's "Women Debate" :
I dont agree that men pick fun at women and make fun of their looks. Atleast the ones that do give a bad name to those who don't. I do agree that women have a lot of stress and i do not have a defined statement about women's role in society. I do, however, believe that women should not be discriminated against. It took many many years to get past descrimination of blacks (which has not totally been deminished) but you would think people would learn from that mistake and stop discriminating against women. --Ian
i kind of agree with ian on the whole women debate...i mean not all guys pick on girls...just a few, and even when guys do do that, i know its not nice or anything but alot of us girls do the exact same thing. we just tend to take things alot more seriously than guys do. and i totally agree that women go through alot but im sure guys do too... tara *-group three-*
This another post on Karl Marx and his revolutionary idea of Communism, which came about during the Victorian Era of England. I'm not going to directly quote the book, but rather paraphrase a few interesting parts.
Karl Marx came from a Jewish family, and yet he became a harsh atheist.
Karl Marx was German; however, due to his revolutionary ideas, he was exiled from Germany to France, exiled from France to Belgium, and finally landed himself in England with Frederick Engels.
He had no money; over the years, three of his children died, perhaps due to the lack of food and proper care, and the rest of his family was starving; the only thing that kept Karl going was the fact that he knew that his ideas were correct, and he knew that no one besides himself would be able to share the ideas with the world.
Karl Marx was a genius; he was an extremely hard worker and a brilliant linguist, able to speak in German, French, English, and a dozen other languages; he was also able to absorb volumes of information on history, philosophy, and economics and interpret amazing amounts of data.
I am very surprised by this information. Karl Marx was a pretty messed up guy. I have a couple of questions for everyone:
a. Do you think that religion is sometimes bad in the fact that it often gives way to radical thinkers?
b. Should people, like Karl Marx and other revolutionaries, reach a point where they need to be killed?
Also interesting: Karl Marx was employed by the New York Tribune as a correspondant in London. We were pretty much feeding our own enemy.
I am Mauro Whiteman, from Group 4, and I got this information from the book "Karl Marx" by Arnold Kettle. Hopefully this counts as a post?!
-Mauro Whiteman
Hey again...
This is Mauro Whiteman, and I am in Group 1, not 4 as I previously posted.
My bad...
-Mauro Whiteman (Group 1)
Responding to Mauro's comment on Karl Marx and Communism-
a. Religion is not bad and I don't think that it gives way to radical thinkers all by its self. However, religion does cause a lot of arguments. I think that in order to avoid conflict people need to keep their religious opinions to themselves and accept that others see religion differently. Karl Marx saw that religion would cause conflict so his solution was to do away with it all together.
b. Killing people just because they have different opinions is wrong. At the time Karl Marx was not harming anyone with his views on communism. People such as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin who use violence and terror to force others to accept their ideas is wrong however.
-Alex Group 2
"1804-
The Napoleonic Code of France considers women-like criminals, children, and the insane-to be legal minors. A woman's husband controls her property and, in the case of divorce, gets the children."
Encyclopedia Britanica's Guide to Women's History
2006
Encyclopedia Britanica Inc.
12-14-06
www.search.eb.com/women/timeline
Women had it pretty rough in the 1800's.
a. Why did people believe that women were inferior to men?
b. Why did many women of the time accept that they were inferior?
-Alex group 2
Responding to the women's education debate-
"Most expets wanted to teach them (women) enough to be really useful, but not enough to give them ambition."(226).
Kirstin Olsen
Daily Life in 18th Century England
Westport, CT
Greenwood Press
1999
The experts were obivously all men.
They wanted women to be useful but not get to ambitious.
A. Do you think the men were scared of women becoming equal?
B. What hardships would men face if opportunities for women were equal to that of men's?
Sorry I forgot to put I am in group 2.
"When a woman got dressed in the 18th century, she first put on a chemise, a linen shirt or shift that hung to just below the knees. This was opposed by some on the grounds of health(autopsies demonstrated that tight lacing could actually kill) and by some on the grounds of confort."(96).
Same source as my last comment.
The brace was tightened so much that a woman's lungs could not expand enough to take in a full breath of air. If a women did any kind of physical activity she could sufficate because her lungs could not take in enough air.
A. How would you like to wear a tight brace that could kill you?
B. Why was personal saftey less important in the 1800's than today?
-Alex Group 2
This is a comment on Al Man's last post. I think that it would have sucked to be a woman in the Victorian Age because of all of the importance placed on physical beauty and status. Much like today, women felt pressured to look good. However, unlike today, one of the methods of gaining beauty was that of wearing those tight corsets alluded to in Al's post. As he said, these were very dangerous. There are many comparisons that could be drawn from fashion in both ages. Both ages have women taking extreme measures to be beautiful: the corsets in the Victorian Age and plastic surgery nowadays. I believe both are unneccessary and a harsh truth about how shallow human nature is.
Quite frankly, I'm Jade Klette and I'm in group 1.
This is a comment on ol' Joe boy's post.
I think that women were extremely mistreated back in the Victorian Age, and human civilization should never go back to that sort of hideous violation of women's rights. That stuff is pretty disgusting. Anyway, I don't get why women would risk their health just to look good, especially by wearing corsets and other tight-fitting garmets. Unless they were forced to wear these garmets by men, in which case, I don't understand how men could be so ignorant.
-Mauro Whiteman (Group 1)
"Logic is like the sword. Those that appeal to it shall perish by it."
-Samuel Butler
This quote seems to say that those who seek too much knowledge will eventually find there is a negative side to knowing so much.
Do you agree with Butler's views and his comparison of his sword to logic?
Samuel Butler by Lee E. Holt
"He already showed that thought is a disease of the flesh..."
-Thomas Hardy in "The Return of the Native"
This is an interesting quote by A.O.J. Cockshut. At first it was hard for me to analyze this statement, however, I stumbled upon the reasoning that he was alluding to one who was smart was incapable of being physically beautiful. In this, you can see his sheer pessimism in this quote. It seems as if, in his other writings, that this theme of pessimism is oft repeated. Hardy believed that the only reason people wrote was to reveal the bad things in life. This way of thinking is absolutely ludicrous to me. Why wouldn't people want to write happy things? What purpose does talking about bad things have? I think it would be more productive to the morale of the citizens if people wrote about happy things. I would like to hear some of your opinions on this idea.
Quite frankly, I'm Jade Klette and I just made a post.
i found a good chapter about women's roles in Hardy's novels. It seems as if Hardy was sensitive to women's feelings and showed vast knowledge about girlish tendencies and mannerisms. Here is the book:
"Hardy: A Collection of Critical Essays" edited by Albert J. Guerard
hey mauro, about your religion/death post...b)i dont think that anyone should ever be killed for what they beieve in. reading up on marx, i found that he really believed that what he was doing was right...he truly believed in what he did...and even though what he spread is considered wrong, it affected only those who allowed it to. marx may have been aggressive with his ideas but people were hardly ever put in a life or death situation. what im saying is, if it didnt involve you, then what difference would it make if the idea and its maker was dead...even though marx's ideas in the end had a big effect on everyone in the modern world, you catch my drift. tara--group three--
"For much of history, people believed that punishment should be harsh and brutal, and there was litle sympathy for the criminal. However, in the 19th century a movement dedicated to improving and reforming conditions in prisons gained momentum and some popularity... book's encouraged people to think more deeply about hwy society punishes criminals."
Crime and Punishment Changing Attitudes 1900-2000 by Alison Brownlie
I understand why people could be angry at a lawbreaker, but why treat them so harshly? If they killed someone, yes be really angry. If they did something simple, then no major punishment is needed.
Why would people put such harsh punishments on criminals, wheither is was a serious crime or not?
Mikayla Trenary, group 5
"Male and female prison cultures, however, differ fundamentally. The male inmate is thrown into prolonged intimacy w/ other men and is forced to take and aggressive stance and to be constantly wary for his personal safety. Physical attacks are commonplace. In famle prisons there is less violence, by and large but different groups do come into conflict. Woment tend to be helf in smaller prisons w/ fewer programs and recreational opportunities."
Crime and Punishment Changing Attitudes 1900-2000 by Alison Brownlie
It amazes me how people claim criminals are criminals, but because women are different from men they get better prison conditions and better prison experiences.
Why do you think this is?
Mikayla Trenary, group 5
This is with the Samuel Butler quote that Courtney posted.
I do in way believe what he says is true. When someone knows information, they want to share it. Soon that person thinks they are just brilliant and get kind of conceited. Too much knowledge can change a person.
This is a comment on Alex's response to the women's debate.
A. I do think that men were and are scared of being completely equal to men. I feel that now that women are becoming a symbol in socitey, men are afraid to lose their status and have to take orders from a type that use to be inferior.
B.Men wouldn't face many hardships. They'd only have to listen to females, if they worked under one. That wouldn't be such a bad thing, I simply think these men are afraid of change.
"1840
Female delegates are refused admittance to the World's Anti-Slavery Convention in London. This event leads Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton to call the first women's rights convention."
Encyclopedia Britanica's Guide to Women's History
2006
Encyclopedia Britanica Inc.
12-14-06
www.search.eb.com/women/timeline
This event started a global women's rights movement that continues to this day.
A. The women's rights movement is very similar to the civil rights movement. Did the women's rights movement face bigger challenges than the civil rights movement?
B. Many women's rights leaders teamed up with abolitionists. Was this a good idea?
-Alex group 2
Responding to Mikayla's comment on the treatment of prisoners:
In this time period there was tremendous tension between the social classes. The economic conditon was not promising either. I can see why someone whould steal food to feed their family. I also understand why the shopkeeper would be angry because he is trying to feed his family as well. Kinda sounds like The Grapes of Wrath. All the tension must have created hatred and violence that we can't imagine today. The people that were stolen from must have wanted revenge with led to the poor treatment of prison victims.
-Alex Group 2
Commenting on Mikayla's comment:
It is claimed that imprisoned women are treated the same as imprisoned men because it is easier for the government to lie about something than to fix it. Just kidding. I think that women are treated better because there are people fighting for women's rights, and none fighting for men's. The country has come so far in making sure everyone is equal, that they do not want to relapse into unfairness. The government goes above and beyond for the comforts of women because they want to prove just how fair America is, and to show that everyone is equal, no matter what sex they are. Also, women are the key to the country's future; without them, there would be no future. We can live without men.
The above comment was made by Nicole, group 5.
"My father had left a small collection of books in a little room upstairs, to shich I had access(for it ajoined my own) and which nobody else in our house ever troubled. From that blessed little room, Roderick Random, Peregrine Pickle, Humphery Clinker, Tom Jones, the Vicar of Wakefield, Gil Blas, and Robinson Crusoe, came out a glorious host, to keep me company. They kept alive my fancy, and my hope for something beyond that place and time."-Ch. 4, David Copperfield
http://www.online-literature.com/dickens/
Have you ever felt this way, that books are the best source of company and that they keep your life the way that it is with your hopes and dreams?
-Amber Cartwright group 6
Commenting on Alex's comment:
It was probably just as hard for women to gain rights as it was for African Americans. Both groups were seen as inferior to white men. It was a fantastic idea for the groups to join forces. Having more people working towards one common goal would be decisive in getting the attention of the people who were so unjust. Having more people would also mean that there would be more ideas, thus creating a lesser chance that even the littlest injustice would be overlooked. There are plenty of reasons why it is better to have one huge band of people, the biggest being safety in numbers.
Nicole, group 5
"Even couples who shared a room often found it desireable for the husband to have a seperate dressing room for himself;"Page 38.
-Judith Flanders
Inside the Victorian Home(should be underlined, but I don't know how to)
This quote goes on longer, but this is the only part that really matters.
A. Going back to women's rights a little bit why did the man get the dressing room? Doesn't it take the women longer to get dressed with all their tight, rib crushing, clothing?
B. Couldn't the rich find anything better to do with their money? Not only did they have dressing rooms, but there where also morning rooms, evening rooms, drawing rooms, sitting rooms, servants quarters, and MANY others. Couldn't they have a little of this money to do something useful like, Oh maybe feeding the homeless...?
-Marisa Group 7
Wutup. 'Tis Jade. I found an extroardinary site that helped me to grasp Hardy's writing style by taking a peek at some of his works.
http://www.online-literature.com/hardy/
In one of Hardy's most famous novels, "Tess of D'urbervilles", Hardy depicts a young woman that is sent to court and marry a rich heir. During that time, she is raped by this man and becomes pregnant. Soon after, she leaves to have their baby, Sorrow. Sorrow dies shortly after. Plagued with guilt of her 'impurity', she vows never to marry. This holds true until she meets the dashing young man, Angel. She agrees to marry him, however, soon after, he finds out of her impurity and leaves her.
This book was highly criticized and created much turmoil in London at that time. I think this is a good example of Hardy's writing style. He first introduces hope,(a poor girl being courted by a rich heir) then destroys that hope with a misfortunate event,(being raped) and another,(death of sorrow)and then reintroducing hope.(meeting and marrying Angel)Finally, he ends the novel with yet another demoralizing blow that destroys all hope for the main character by having Angel leave her because of her impurity. His terrible outlook on love and life leads me to believe he tries to get the point across that love is not worth the time, because in the end you will always be hurt. I am also intrigued by the names Hardy chose in his novel. Naming the baby Sorrow is very interesting because it may represent her grief of becoming impure or maybe she had the afore knowledge that this baby would not survive. Angel is quite pondering as well. It seemed at the beginning that this man would bring happiness to the main character, so therefore 'Angel' would make sense. However, with him leaving and giving her even more grief and sorrow, Angel does not seem appropriate. Any thoughts on this subject???
Quite frankly, I'm tired. I'm also Jade and I'm with group 1. g'night everybody.
B1 Daily Life in 18th Century England
"When sex within the marriage grew wearisome or impossible, some people engaged in adultry. A women could expect little sympathy in a society that considered her body the property of her husband." later in the passage it goes on to say that husbands would beat their wives without justice. It also says that marital rape was not frowned upon. - Oliver "the Oliver" Jones
Wow! This is interesting. Women being called whores that doesn't ever happen anymore. I mean there is a whole show about it on abc. You can't go more than a few meters without seeing it on a magazine. I also feel that this is horrible to see that women had no control over what their husband did to them.
This is a comment about tara's comment about parents attacking teachers. I think that it is almost the same today. Teachers have to be tough. They have to defend their ideas against everyone. They are strong. I also think it is interesting that their was no want for schooling. - Oliver Jones
Ian-- [Dickens] was a congenial man, hospitable and generous to a fault which caused him financial difficulties throughout his life"
I admire this quality, hospitality. I think that everyone, unless they prove otherwise, diserves hospitality. Dickens displays this very well, and unfortunately suffers because of it. -- Ian
Ian-- "Dickens was a voracious reader of such authors as Henry Fielding, Daniel Defoe, and Oliver Goldsmith."
I definately think that his "voracious" reading made him the writer that he was. -- Ian group six
Daily life in 18th-centery England
The thumb was that a man could beat his wife as long as he used a stick that was no bigger round then his thumb
I think this was a really dumb law its like saying you can steal as much as you can carry, but no more that would be against the law. that is just weird becuase the size of thumbs is not always the same and how could you prove if they used the right size stick or not.
This a comment on Oliver's comment. Do women really have control over their husbands now? If a husbands abuses his wife then he can be put in jail, but if he commits adultery or is cuckoldry then what can people do really? The wife can freak out on the husband, but does that really change anything. Maybe society excepted adultery more for men then women but i think the choice to cheat on a spouse is really up to the person.
-Marisa group 7
commenting on the information posted by katie i think co-ed schools are the devil. They allow hormones and lust to run rampant.
This is sam group three.
Responding to Amber's post about how books make people feel.
I don't think I have personally felt that way, but I know that's how my father hid away from the world at my age. He didn't live in a healthy environment and to this day he talks about how books kept him from running away and from going insane. Now if I am having a bad day I simply grab a book.
Mikayla group 5
Whipping was frequently ordered for smaller offences like theft. Increasingly it was regarded as cruel and barbaric but there are frequent references in the Buckinghamshire records to prisoners being whipped, even children. Private whipping took place within the gaol but public whipping took the form of a public spectacle in the Market Square. Adults could expect the harsh cat’o’nine tails, but on children the birch rod was probably used.
Buckinghamshire County Council
http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/archives/education/victorian_crime/punishment.htm
I can't believe that whipping would be a public spectacle, and people would actually enjoy those things. Also, I can't believe that children were whipped as well.
Why do you think whipping was a public spectacle?
Mikayla, group 5
Mikayla
I think that wipping was considred good because they were being punished for what they had done wrong and people would enjoy seeing who the "bad" people and "good" people were, it hink that they would show the punishment more so then the reward because they wanted to keep people in line and afaired to do wrong so that they would be the best they can. it would be kind of the same thing as the hangings, mostly used to scare people out of doing wrong.
-*Katy (Group 2)*-
Ok sam to your response to my comment, yes they do but they also teach you equality and how to live in they real would, in reality you would not always be seperated, not even back then, sonner or later you will have to deal with the hormons and the stress of liking someone, pluse these scholls led to the start of the equality we now have today, between men and women
-*Katy (Group 2)*-
this is to Mauro's comment on the novel being invented.
I think that this is very true and i would to like to find out what they wrote befor novles, i think it was more pomes and that sort of thing but i have no idea
-*Katy (Group 2)-*
ok this Marisa's about the men having dressing rooms
I agree wiht you all the way, i think that it is very odd that the man in the house would get the dressing room because of what you said all of the restricive clothing the women would wear, but on your thing about feeding the homeless, they didnt care they wanted to have the biggest and best houses, they wanted to ahve everything, they would never want to give that away.
This is to alex's response to the womans education,
a) i think that they were some what scared of the women learning things, they were afriad that htey might learn that they were equale or that they could defeined themselfs, maybe not phycicaly but in some way.
b)i think that once the women started to learn more and have the knowldge to do the jobs that were done mostly by men, they would be able to move in and take over jobs.
this is a post responding to mikayla's post about whipping as a public spectacle. i really think that whipping was a pubic spectacle because it was the only way to really get people's attention. if people realized what would happen if they did wrong, then maybe they wouldn't do it at all. i think that people enjoyed this spectacle just because of human nature. kind of like how lots of people like to watch fights...they think it's all cool until they are the one getting hit or whipped. tara group three
"The idyllic days of his childhood were over and he was rudely introduced to the world of the working poor, where child labour was rampant and few if any adults spared a kind word for many aboned or orphaned children."
http://www.online-literature.com/dickens/
The life of Charles Dickens was hard, he had to start working at the age of twelve and support his family, lives of today can also be hard. You hear about these situations of no one taking notice of the poor even today, but not as much.
In the above I am in group 6.
Amber
On Dickens' tomb is inscribed the following: "He was a symathiser to the poor, the suffering, the oppressed; and by his death, one of England's greatest writers is lost to the world."
http://www.online-literature.com/dickens/
I think that the way that Dickens is described is very true. He shows a great sympathy towards the poor in many of his works. For example, he talks of the happiness of Christmas in A Christmas Carol even when there is a low income for the family.
-Amber Cartwright
group 6
This is a comment on Ian's post of Dickens being a voracious reader.
Being the reader that he was expanded his imagination. I think that you see this all the time, people who read a lot can usually understand better or at least differently because of the different ways to interpret books and poetry in today's world.
-Amber Cartwright
group 6
O.K. this is a comment on Tara's first entry.
~To answer your question Tara, I do not think that harassment of teachers is right (verbally or physically). I totally think that parents should discuss issues with their children's teachers, but in a calm and collected manner. As adults, they should know (and are expected) to act with decency. Violent acts could increase the possiblilty of their children acting out like that. In this case, the parents would not only be affecting the teacher, but they would be indirectly affecting other people that their children could act out on. I guess my point is that hopefully these days most adults have figured out what was appropriate and what is not when conversing with other people.
Okay this is a comment to Katy's comment about my comment...maybe the fact that the rich don't care about the other classes is a problem in the victorian and maybe even our society. The poor suffer while the rich profit off of it. It doesn't seem fair! I know there are a lot of wealthy people who donate money to the common good, but is that enough? Can't they also donate some time? Money only goes so far. Charties need people in charge to help run them or else they just fall apart. Maybe if People just started caring more than we would have a much better, more balanced society.
This is a comment (my final required comment :) yay!) on Ambers entry about Dickens life being hard. I think that more people should be made aware of other people's lives being hard. In my opion, we as a society are too self-centered (me included) and do not care enough about other people who actually do need our thoughts. There are many people that live a life of luxury daily while there are people on the streets digging in the dump to find a bit of food. The world and our society would be a much better place if everybody who could afford it would just give a little to help somebody in need out as an alternative to buying something not necessarily needed for themselves. Her quote was just proof that people have been treating others this way for way too long and I think its time for a change.
hmmm dunno if im supposed to put this but everybody else seems like they are so im in group one....cuz my eyes were the lightest....cuz they are blue....like the sky....or the ocean....not really, they are kinda grey blue but i was trying to make them sound WAY cooler! hehe ok im done now! i love you all! o yea, and this is court if i forgot to mention that but im pretty darn sure that it says that anyways.
"Every man's work, whether it be literature or music or pictures or architecture or anything else, is always a portrait of himself, and the more he tries to conceal himself the more clearly will his character appear in spite of him..."
-Samuel Butler
I like this quote alot. I agree with Butler on this idea. He's saying that what a person does, describes them, and even if they try to hide who or what they are, their true character will still shine through. I myself, have experienced and found this true.
So my question is what do you guys all think about this? I can see another side to it and im curious if anybody else feels that way. I can also see somebody thinking that what a person does is what they HAVE to do, not necessarily what they want to do, therefore it does not exactly describe the person. My response to this however is that even if you do not love what you do, after you do it long enough, it comes to be who you are. I dunno though, thats my opinion.
In response to Mikayla's comment on the public beating of criminals:
In the time of Dickens life was much harder than today. People even more so than now resorted to violence to teach a lesson or for punishment. In order to promote an idea the public was often scared into following the command of the monarch or ruler. The victim of the wipping probably screamed, and the wips would cause open wounds that would horrify public bystanders. I know that I personaly would obey the law to avoid the agony. Those who were punished would not be eggar to steal again for fear of being wipped again. Simply, public wippings were a cruel, yet effective way of controlling crime.
Alex group 2
I'm commenting on Katy's comment to the whipping subject, which is really hard because I have to wear this stupid brace on my wrist. Oh well, ya can't win 'em all. Anyways, I disagree with the fact that the public whippings were used to discourage people from 'being bad'. I believe that watching the whippings was merely a form of entertainment, much like UFC fights or boxing. I do, however, believe that their original intent was to be a form of warning, but it just evolved into entertainment, because, quite frankly, the warning would be in vain and would have no chance at succeeding because of one major point: a man's(or woman) gotta do what a man's(again...woman could be substituted) gotta do. If a guy's family is starving, he won't think twice about stealing that loaf of bread. It was just a flaw in their soceity, much like ours, that caused some people to be poor. Sometimes, the only way for someone, or a family, can survive is by breaking the law. That is why I don't think the public whippings were a warning; the fact is, some people are just going to flat out break the law, it's human nature. If not for mere personal gain, they will break the law to survive, there is no getting around that, and I don't think knowing that you may be whipped if you get caught stealing that bread will change your mind. It's just a matter of life or death, a couple really bad welts unimaginable suffering from malnutrition.
Quite frankly, I'm Jade Klette and my wrist hurts. (groupe 1)
groupe isn't spelt wrong, it's just ol' british grammer :) Just in case you guys wanted to know.
Quite frankly, that was my very last blog, I know you guys are disappointed but I think it would be a novel idea if I didn't blog for awhile, I think if I make another blog I might have to go crazy! But don't get me wrong, I think it is a wonderful skill to have and I'm glad I learned how to do it.
Quite frankly, I'm Jade Klette and I'm out.
jeeze i just keep forgetting things. the last entry i made was from the book Samuel Butler by Lee E. Holt
one more, I want to be the 100th comment :)
Quite frankly, I'm Jade Klette and I'm done for good this time.
P.s. Thanks for the cheeseburger Ms. Gaare. It was delectible.
darn, i guess 101 is better than 100 anyways. thanks court
YAY MY LAST ENTRY!
"Great writers speak for their time. This is especially true of Charles Dickens who used his superb power as a story-teller to expose the flagrant cruelties and hypocrisies of his age."
-Ivor Brown
from the book Dickens in his time by Ivor Brown
The Victorian Literatrue era was a great time to be reading! The novel was just being developed, and that is just an example of how exciting that was to people. Dickens was one of the many who were developing new exciting ideas to protray in the form of fictionous novels to be read for enjoyment by many people. I think i would enjoy living back in that time just to experience what it would be like to have all of these new ideas being spread through books.
p.s. jade, your just jealous cuz i beat ya too number 100! face it, its better than 101.
pss im offically done blogging for a very long time. it was a good skill to learn, but im not so sure i enjoy that use of my time just for pure fun.
I1 1840 Female delagates wee denied the rights to participate in the worlds anti-slave convention - Oliver Jones
Talk about Irony women weren't aloud to participate in anti slave acts. Hmm I wonder why.- Oliver Jones
On December 12 at 9:54 Ian made a comment about how Dickens was the spokesmen for the poor. I truly believe that this is true in every single way. He wrote stories about the fight that the poor went through and I beleive that he was a real trooper. - Oliver Jones
Hey, whats happening big tickets this is the Oliver Jones man of mystery and love. I am here today to talk about Zew zealand. Nope I'm not talking Elijah Wood here. The first country to grant women the right to vote was New Zealand. In 1893 Largely through the efforts of suffragist Kate Sheppard, New Zealand became the first country to grant women the right to vote.- Oliver Jones
"Despite the partnership of wives and husbands on farms, and the activity of women in commerce and craft, there was a very definite idea of a private sphere, inahpited, nad tended by women. Women were sonsequently not able to vote, vote hold property while married, got to a university, earn equal wages, enter a proffession, or be protected from marital beatings and rape." - Oliver Jones
Life in Victorin England
Woman higer in the social classes had more opertunities, they could be in the law field, Meicical field, or be higer in the Church community.
I think that is is unfair, i think that anyone should have the opertunity to do what every they want, not be forced to do something because that is what their parents did, what do you all think about this and do you think you should be labled for what your parents did.??
-*Katy (Group 2)*-
Okay this is a comment on Mikayla's comment. In my research the books always go on and on about how men are the greater sex. Personally I think that's kind of ridiculous, but to the Victorians that was a common belief. Maybe they men had bigger prisons because there where a lot more male criminals. Men where seen as stronger more capable of error. Women where seen as weak not as capable of wrong doing, such as murder. That might be why women's prisons where so small. I don't know if that's true i'm just guessing...
Marisa group 7
Im commenting on Katy's comment about oppurtunities for Victiorian women. I agree with Katy. I think that all women should be open to all oppritunities not just the rich. Maybe that injustice is what led to our society today.
-Marisa group 7
"It was assumed that a gentleman was by right a member of the ruling class, not to be questioned by his inferiors nor overready to accept superior authority: answerable only to his notions of right and wrong."19.
W.J. Reader
Life in Victorian England
It's pretty sad when you get power just because of your parents. That really doesn't make a good way of ruling your country. Shouldn't those who rule be based more on intellectual ability then by birth rights?
-Marisa group 7
"There was always the hope that she might become an 'upper servant', though there generally came from farmers' families rather than cottages"50.
W.J. Reader
Life in Victorian England
This is just another example of, how things people had no control over, such as parents, shaped their lives. Just because someone was born poor they would most likely grow and live poorly too. It makes me really happy that I live in a country where the poor and underprivaliged have a way of bettering their lives.
The above comment is from me, Marisa group 7, and my question is what is your stand on having a system where your social class is determined by your parent's lives?
I like where Marisa was going with her comment. Perhaps this is where the current societal state of the world all started way back in the Victorian era. Our society today is shamelessly materialistic over every aspect of living, such as who has the new $200 hair straightener from California(a true conversation in the DT locker room). Wealthy women were the only women who reached high educational status or church status back then. A similar situation would be a talented basketball player that wants to play ball in college, who would be a great asset to the team, but cannot go because of the financial status she's in. Everything rotates and hinges on whether you have money, anymore. From brands of purses to the kitchen flooring, everything is either made expensive, or made to look expensive because of our current materialistic state(myself not excluded). If this state of mind had been stopped and reformed in Victorian times, would our society still be the same as it is today?
Nicole, group 5
"Middle-class people seemed to regard themselves as spectators enjoying the spectacle of a sumptuous life presented to them by excellent actors on a superb stage" (437).
Andre Maurois
The Miracle of England
Harper and Brothers, New York, NY
copyright 1937
well, i found this quote doing some research and i thought it was really cool because it really relates to life today, although the book was published in 1937. you know how you go to a feel good movie that is entirely different from your life and you're like, "man i wish that was me!"? and then when you leave the theater you thought it was the best movie you've ever seen. that is kind of like how the middle class viewed the upper class...they were the ones with the awesome clothes, the hot, well-to-do husbands, and the money. just like in the movies...ahhhh, dreamy. tara group three!
well i forgot to ask you all a question about the above so...why do you think that the middle class admired the upper class? was it because they were like us with the feel-good movie? bye...that was my last one...i also have one last question...is all fair in love and war?
above posted by tara...group three
I am answering Mikayla's question.
People put a harsh punishment on criminals when they commit a serious crime or a little crime because they want the criminals to learn their lesson. If the punishment is not big enought then the criminal will go on being a criminal because the punishment is not harsh enough to change the mind of the criminal. A long or harsh punishment will allow the criminal to reflect back and see if the crime was worth the punishment.
-Jessica (group 4)
"Upperclass men and women indulged in adulterous liaisons."
http://www.answers.com/topic/victorian-style
-Jessica Kubiak (group 4)
a.Do you think men and women in upperclass society should of "indulged in adulterous liaisons"?
b.Would you expect women and men of upperclass society to indulge in such things as adulterous liaisons?
Answering Alex's first question. I would not like to wear a brace that could kill mebecause it could kill me. I also would not wear the brace because i would hardly be able to breath. The brace might make me look skinny but it would really harm my health and that is also why i would not wear a brace.
- Jessica Kubiak (group 4)
A true gentleman would open the car or carriage door for the women. The guy would stand up everytime a woman entered the room. A true gentleman would not boast about wealth, gifts, or their own strength. A true gentleman would not be depressed by failure or full of himself when he succeded.
~Jessica Kubiak
a. Do you think men should act like a true gentleman in today's times?
b. Do you think the women got used to men opening carriages, and standing up when they entered the room?
"Increasingly it was regarded as cruel and barbaric but there are frequent references in the Buckinghamshire records to prisoners being whipped, even children. Private whippings took place within the gaol but public whipping took the form of a public spectacle in the Market Square."
http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/archives/education/victorian_crime/punishment.htm
It is interesting to think that, in a way, even back then, people were punished by public humiliation from their peers. Modern people report being less scared of dying than they are of giving a speech in front of an audience of peers. Even in Victorian times, people were too concerned about what others thought about them. I am sure that many crimes were discouraged through this unusual use of a punishment. Do you think people care too much, too little, or just the right amount about what others think about them?
Nicole, group 5
"Before Victorian times no distinction wa maed between criminals of any age. Accordingly, young children could be sent to an adult prison. There are records of children aged 12 being hanged."
http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/snapshots/shapshot24/snapshot24.htm
Besides the murdering of small children, I actually agree with the thought of making the youth pay repercution in the form of punishment for the crimes they commit. Since before preschool, children are taught right from wrong; coloring outside the lines is wrong, saying 'please' and 'thank you' is right. The most immature of a child would know that stealing candy or letting the neighbor's dog loose is wrong. If a child is not reprimanded for their actions, they will find no self worth, being as how they are not rewarded or punished for any of their actions. A couple of nights in prison wouldn't be so bad for a child to whip the knowledge of justice and fairness into them. Comment on whether or not you think children should be punished for their actions by more than just a time-out.
Nicole, group 5
"Sir George Onesiphorus Paul built a new model prison at Gloucester. It was secure, well-built, healthy, seperated men, women, and children. The rules ensured that prisoners wore uniform, were taught to read and write, were reasonably fed and cared for if ill."
http://www.victorianvoices.com/resource_pack/crime_punishment_law/
When I first read about this way of life for the criminals, I thought it was ridiculous. I thought that it was completely unfair that the public had to support the criminals that wronged against their people. However, when I took a deeper look, I found a whole new perspective. To better the society as a whole, criminals were educated and prepared for their release date so that they could contribute more to the society that otherwise would not have been possible. To have more educated, wise people would only give back to the country. In a way, the released would actually be more knowledgable than most of the general public, having seen the other side, and having learned their lesson. Those who did not do better upon their gift of freedom would no doubt be due back in prison or taken to the gallows. Do you think it is right for a country to give so much luxury to its criminals?
Nicole, group 5
In answer to Nichole, I would say that while it is amiable to support former wrong-doers, shouldn't the emphases be on others who haven't proven themselves unworthy. Do the innocent deserve more because of their innocence? Would this treatment increase crime because people WANT to go to prison?
Will our sensitive fine ladies blush at the plain good sense and simplicity of such an observation [of birth control]? Let me tell them, the indelicacy is in their own minds, not in the words of the French mother.
Robert Owen MORAL PHYSIOLGY 1830
America has always had a reputation of prudence as compared with Europe and it stood out the most during the Victorian societal revolutions.
(a)Is this reputation accurate and deserved? (b) Are you proud of not being so forward as Europeans?
Even among best friends or between spouses numerous topics were literally unspeakable: sex, prostitution, illegitimate children, birth control, homosexuality, insanity, suicide, underclothes and all the details of physiology, illness, or hygiene.
Mary Cable and The Editors of American Heritage AMERICAN MANNERS AND MORALS
Taboos of Victorian society have all been broken down as sex, homosexuality, suicide and other controversial topics become vogue to discuss in today's world of MTV and rebellious youth. Our culture leaves very little sacred but I think our taboos of today include racism, "that time of the month"(it is one of the last gender oriented phenomenon that makes people uncomfortable to talk about), and Religion (when was the last time you told someone that their god doesn't exist?).
Are my conclusions correct? Are taboos good or bad?
The tunic, starched frill, and pantalettes for a boy of six doubtless inhibited play. One enlightened doctor said such restraint was "as unnatural as it would be to confine the deer in the midst of the forest."
Mary Cable and The Editors of American Heritage AMERICAN MANNERS AND MORALS
A keystone in Victorian upper-crust life was fashion. The restrictive, painful, and in some cases deadly corsets are a parallel to the deathly skinny models. Both made sacrifices to their comfort and health for the sake of beauty, attractiveness, and social status.
The response to eating disorders that has been pounded into the mind of American students is that they are horrible disease and must be avoided and stopped. How many clergy and devout followers of their respective creeds fast for hazardous amounts of time. How many poor people skip meals in order to better nourish their children. The latter group is celebrated for their dedication to their creed or family. Why not reward those dedicated to the value of beauty also? Religion is responsible for persecution, genocide and war. What has the fashion industry ever done to hurt people?
Question: Why is self-mutilation justified in the name of faith but not in the name of beauty?
Jojo coburn- Group 4 Victorian Manners and Etiquette.
~Jessica Kubiak
a. Do you think men should act like a true gentleman in today's times? The word 'man' tends to represent both genders ('mankind', etcetera)Not only do I think the men should act this way, but all people should. What greater show of respect than to help someone out of a car without them asking. As for women getting out of a carriage, they could not manouver out without assistance because of their painful restraints.
b. Do you think the women got used to men opening carriages, and standing up when they entered the room? They would not get used to it because that implies that they didn't have that at one point. There would be noting to get used to because that was the way it was all their life.
response by Jojo coburn group 4 to Jessica group 4
December 19, 2006 7:23 PM
a. Do you think men and women in upper-class society should of "indulged in adulterous liaisons"?
No one here can answer this question. We have no right to judge the generalized actions of people living in a different time and place as us. Nor can we decide what he or she should or shouldn't have done because they had a different value system than any of the people hear do.
b. Would you expect women and men of upper class society to indulge in such things as adulterous liaisons? As long as sex is still possible it will be perpetrated outside of the bounds of marriage. And further on that note, what is marriage but a financial agreement really? Does there need to be a contract of love to get a marriage? What is love?
Jojo Coburn (4) responding to Jessica. please note, the last six posts(this one inclusive) are by Jojo Coburn of Group four.
mm so finally i can post!! lol.. so anyway.. even though me and tara are in the same group.. that would be group 3.. i would like to say that i do think that the parents were wrong for attacking the teachers, however i would also like to point out that teachers also felt that if a student, who in our time would be considered slow learning, or maybe even mentally hadicapped, got pointed out as not trying hard enough and punished.. that's right the teachers would punish the sped kids because they felt they were slacking.. so therefore, i feel that there was some area for disagreement between how the teachers were handling these parent's kid... but i still do not feel that violence is the answer.. : ) aight.. peace out.. [[kathrin mae-mckenzie hardy]]
well i do agree with Marisa on the subject of being thankful for living in a country where you have that right to change and control your future, no matter where you come from.. i mean it really doesn't matter if you are rich or poor, life works in mysterious ways and it can change at a moments notice.. but anywho answering the question that she left, you are not your parents, what your parents do with their lives, may not be how you grow up and live your life, i feel that it's wrong to determine someones life by how their parents lived theirs. charles dickens is a perfect example, he came from the poor, but he had a gift in writing and he embraced it and he made a fortune with his writings, that is how it should be. building your future how you want it!.. ^_^ <3 [[kafrin hardy]]
so.. as i was reading.. i came across something i find interesting concerning the social class diferences in the schools... -wealthy and poor kids were separated in class by walls and played games at different times. this strikes up a familiar theme, the poor often segragated from the more privilaged students.. but yet it still happens today, with sterotypes and cliques, kids tend to separate themselves with peers they feel comfortable with.. so my question to you is, even though you know its wrong how they segragated kids back then, do you find yourself segragating yourself from others? do you see it happening all around you? --kafrin hardy--[[group 3]]
Hey anybody who wants to look this up change all of the lyrics of she in don't bother by shakira to he and wala womens rights oh and the part about her touching him better change the following to he beat me with a stick didn't he do good
Oli ba ba
Dear Jo-Jo you asked if women and men in upper society should of got involved in adultrous? behavior. I think that in this time it was still wrong, but in some cases there was no alternative. there is a few comments I have made about this subject. These comments pertain to the lack of love in these marriages where beating and marital rapping was perfectly normal. To find someone who truly loved you was perfectly fine. To not be able to live with the shame of adultry is something that will go on forever. It is a coin with two heads in a game of chance. The Women could never win. If you pick tails you can never win.- Oliver Jones
Daily Life in 18th century England
Plenty of Prominent men would keep mistress's and have whole families of bastards. Women could not speak out for fear of their lives, If they left their husbands they would only recieve ridicule. pg. 48(paraphrased)
I am shocked to hear this. This sort of thing doesn't happen today. I wish this thinking was correct. I feel that we have gone nowhere in time. We still judge women if they are unfaithful, but what if a man cheats he recieves no punishment from the outside world. He only recieves ridicule from the young lady he has cheated on. - Oliver Jones
Daily Life in 18th Century England
For a women to be recieved as a real lady or women of poise and manor, she had to marry a wealthy man. If she didn't she would be recieved as poor stupid and unequal. Pg. 15 (paraphrased)
This is interesting to me that women basically had to marry into living. Not to say that being poor and not being considered a person isn't living it is. I believe that if a women was to live comfortably she had to be a gold digger. This was the only way to be excepted. Oliver Jones
1."It was fortunate for me that I had to take precautions to insure the safety of my dreadful visitor..."
Why does Pip look at his father, and benefactor of his fortunes, as a 'dreadful visitor'? Despite his rough features and shady past, it seems as if, as his child and reciever of his fortunes, would look at him differently; in a more loving way. This seems like a trend for Pip though. Now that he has become a gentleman, he is totally oblivious to those who love him. He pushes away everyone who is pure in heart and kind to him. Joe, Biddy, and now Magwitch all take a back seat to him and his great expectations.
pg. 346, chapter 40
Post a Comment