Category: QCQ’s (Page 1 of 2)

The perception of women at the time was not held very highly if you supported women’s rights. They believed all rights to coverture that had been previously assigned to women no longer mattered. Women I think have always been fighting for a chance to be “in the ring” with men. That didn’t mean if by choice they no longer wanted to live the “typical” life of a woman they couldn’t.

If we collected all of the stories from women about their marriage it would no longer be a system that people wanted to enforce. It was no longer about love but an exchange of property. This goes well into West’s discussion about the power of narrative and what that can do to change laws.

“idealized feminist and feminine judge is, ironically, in many ways engaging in a type of decision making which owes more to a literary and narrative sensibility than the interpreting judge… idealized feminist or feminine judge finds herself facing interlocking wens of stories which she must somehow weave together and then complete.” (206)

West talks again about this “stock story” that law creates, which is not the experience of everyone affected by the law. This is why it is essential to acknowledge all voices and narratives that are generally not heard. Which in turn is the importance of the narrative. The law deals with people and their possible or actual experiences, so using this interpretation method that uses conflicting rules, principles, and theories disregards all other stories. The narrative allows the education of the ignorant and provides truth to the misinformed judgment. The feminist theory uses this strategy very strategically. But does that make it effective? Feminism and literature do the same thing– they want to bring forward excluded voices to change the legal theory. Feminism itself also follows this “stock” story of what the white heterosexual woman faces.

What is West’s point? That literature and feminist theory are both important in making a change in our society? Does she think that this will be successful? How do we push for literature that is outside the “canon” and highlight marginalized voices?

“… we shall all be better, I believe, for completing man’s ideal of religion and morals by that of a woman, and learning to ass to his Law of Justice her Law of Love, and to his faith in God’s fatherly care, her faith in His motherly tenderness– that blessed lesson forgotten too long: that “as a woman hath compassion on the son of her womb, even so, the Lord hath pity on us all!'”

The Education Act of 1870 was a massive step in the right direction for education. It provided funded schools for children and they were not forced to participate in religious activities. Yet, there was no discussion of women’s education, which leads us to Cobbes essay. I picked this quote because I think she was on to something when she discusses the benefits of what an educated woman could do. Being educated does not make you any less of a “woman”, but can allow for a new perspective on matters. If we have taught women to be such extraordinary mothers and philanthropists just imagine what they could do with a greater understanding. Cobbe also uses this tone of humor in a way when she discusses some of these topics. She pokes fun at the segregation happening between men and women. Not wanting to educate a woman because it is for men is like saying a woman can’t eat beef because that is what men eat. In her conclusion, she invites everyone to set aside their prejudices and preconceived biases and realize that it is acceptable for people to be multifaceted human beings. We are able to change and see things from other perspectives, even if that is not how it always has been. There is much to say about what a woman should be and not enough about what a woman could be.

Juliet had received some of her education through university classes and learned a skill that would be beneficial to her in the workplace. If a woman was not able to gain some education and had no man to rely on for income and security what welfare would be provided for her?

If I have no said here of the woman and children ’tis not for want of appreciation: they were the salt of the settlement. There was no nonsense of high principles about them: they have followed their husbands and fathers and brother to this outland spot as a woman will do” (75, Chapter 7)

This novel is different than the other books that we have read. Juliet is forced to go to work after her father dies. She is sexualized by the men she visits when searching for a typewriting job. They look her up and down trying to decide if she will be fit for the job before they even evaluate her abilities. She describes her duties as typing “Like the machine that I was”. There is a tone of humor in the way she reacts to the anarchists. After writing her resignation letter she describes herself as a “Free Woman”. She acts as if she is different from other women, less emotional and more rational and intelligent. I think that this quote is probably the way Grant Allen feels about women, rather than that all women are like Juliet.

What are Allen’s true feelings about women? Is there also an underlying joke in this story? Are we supposed to like Juliet? What is the purpose of the dog? How does Micheala differ from Juliet, other than their economic status (she describes her as childlike)?

In class notes:

• Saint references? Political references? Very intertextual, modern, intellectual
• Ulysses, Romeo and Juliet, Carmen and Michaela, St. George (patron saint of England), and the dragon (she is not the princess)–which role will fit her best?
• She tries out all of these different lifestyles and personas
• gender?
• pg 128

‘”There is no precedent for a document giving evidence, and I presume that the witness must be looked upon as a document.”'(134)

“The document, in the form of human parchment, would then be in the hands of the officers of the Court, and the person from whom the parchment had been removed, would also be before the Court. Could it be still maintained that the two were so identical and inseparable that the disabilities attaching to a document must necessarily attach to the person?”(135)

“When Eustace and his wife” (155)

During the first half of the novel, Augusta is a single sister and a well-known writer. She then becomes a single woman with little to no money searching for a place where she can own her work– the model of the “new woman”. Then she is a devoted and sacrificial woman who allows a man to tattoo his will on her for the benefit of someone else. All of these factors are set aside and she becomes a document and evidence. She is a scandal and a mystery worth exploiting for someone else’s profit. It is hard for the lawyers to separate the will from her as a person. They discuss skinning her and they do not even address Augusta as herself but as an inanimate object that belongs to the Court. Then there is this shift in the narrative and she can leave behind this label but becomes a wife. Something that needs protection and coverture, rather than this inconvenient legal object. Yet, when she becomes a wife she still is addressed differently. The marriage seems to no more acknowledge her loss of power than the tattoo did. She has always been dependent on something or someone for economic stability, until after she is married and he gives her back the rights to her book. To me is unclear what the purpose of this is in Haggard’s writing. I can’t imagine he is commenting on this patriarchal society that English women live in.

Is it funny that people cannot see her more than what is on the surface and presented to the outside world, especially the lawyers? What is the joke here and are we supposed to find it funny? Would women of the time have felt sorry for her or was their a different reaction?

“I did; and what is more, Mr. Meeson, I think that you ought to be very much obliged to me; for I daresay that I shall often be sorry for it.” “I am very much obliged,” answered Eustace; “I had no right to expect such a thing, and, in short, I do not know what to say. I should never have thought that any woman was capable of such a sacrifice for– for a comparative stranger.” (Chapter 14, 98)

The story is supposed to be a satirical critique of society and the legal system of the time. I keep wondering what the purpose of the tattoo is. It is earlier described as “savage” by one of the sailors and Augusta calls it a “sacrifice”. An unkind and greedy man she owes nothing to has permanently altered her body. She tries to dignify the decision by claiming it will show her genuine affection for Eustace. At the end of the chapter, it is very clear that he is going to show his gratitude by proposing to her, even though he hardly knows her. She is portrayed as this “new woman” who came from nothing and has become a somewhat successful writer. Yet, she does this foolish thing that she is now ashamed of for a man she too hardly knows. She goes on to question his love for her but she also has done unimaginable things based on extreme emotions. It is clear that there is undoubtedly irony in the tattoo if it is meaningless. And there is a lot of satire about the emotions they feel for each other and how their most recent meetings come about. Augusta could live a life of fulfillment and success from her talent and those connections that it could bring her, yet, she allows men to control her decisions and her body.

What does Haggard want his readers to feel or think about the tattoo? What would people during this time think when they read about it? Are readers supposed to find joy and entertainment in their love or find it to be a joke? Is he making a comment on how unfair and patriarchal society and the law system are or are we supposed to find humanity in the misogyny?

In class discussion:

• Exposing yourself to men
• Purity–> damaged
• Demeaning and loss of dignity
• “gentle-natured devoted woman” would sacrifice
• She has become a document for property exchange
• “Claim”

 “After my visit to the Lock Asylum, I ventured to suggest.. . a doubt whether this and kindred institutions were adapting themselves to the wants of the day. . . . I have often asked myself the question of whether it is really necessary to confine a girl from twelve to eighteen months within the walls of an asylum. How many will remain for so long a time in the institution? When they leave the seclusion which they have become accustomed to, are they better adapted than when they entered, for coping with the temptations outside?”

After reading both the Contagious Disease Act and The Lock Asylum essay, my concluding thought seems to be why they have blamed one-half of the population. They have credited only women for carrying the disease and not men. Even if they wanted to place blame on prostitution for the illness it doesn’t make medical sense to only subject women to involuntary examinations. I can’t imagine the fear and panic these women faced after being isolated in a hospital unwillingly while doctors perform tests on them, to then be moved into an asylum where they are kept for over a year and forced to do work and to stay quiet. Acton makes it a point to justify the work that they are being taught as more beneficial to society and women. But he also questions whether this will truly stop most of these women from going back to the work they were doing before. He starts his essay by saying that approximately only eight percent of the women are subjected to this life at the asylum. This statistic seems to suggest that maybe the work these women are doing seems far less shameful than being locked up like an animal for an unknown amount of time. I can understand the idea that the asylum provides women with a second chance and if they want to escape the work they are doing they are given this opportunity. But why should it be forced? Acton also makes it a point to say that society still believed “once a harlot always a harlot”, so even if these women “reform” and “repent” is it logical to assume that they will be welcomed back?

Would Ruth be penalized for her actions, since she is also referred to as a prostitute/fallen woman? Legally this seems like a possibility, but I would doubt that she would have been. She was working as an educated governess, which society would deem an acceptable job for a woman.

What are the anxieties that surround children born out of wedlock? Leonard physically becomes sick surrounding the new shame of his circumstance. Who would be responsible for the child (what rights does the father have?)? Why would Ruth not want Henry involved in the raising of Leonard?

What counts as “good cause” to assume one is a prostitute?

“When he was there, a sort of constant terror of displeasing him made her voice sharp and nervous; the children knew that many a thing passed over by their mother when their father was away, was sure to be noticed by her when he was present; and noticed, too, in a cross and querulous manner, for she was so much afraid of the blame which on any occasion of their misbehaviour fell upon her. And yet she looked up to her husband with a reverence and regard, and a faithfulness of love, which his decision of character was likely to produce on a weak and anxious mind. He was a rest and a support to her, on whom she cast all her responsibilities; she was an obedient, unremonstrating wife to him” (208 Chapter 20)

Mr. Farquhar expresses many times throughout the chapters that Jemima is too “wild-hearted” for him. Ruth demonstrates all of the qualities that a good wife should have. She is kind, quiet, and obedient. Jemima sees this differently through her jealous eyes. How could Ruth be a suitable wife? She has no money, or connections, and has a child. But Mr. Farquhar likes that she seems interested in his life and thirsts for knowledge, despite all these other things. In Gaskell’s story, men have been more focused on her beauty and her kind obedience rather than what she has to offer them physically. Mr. Donne expresses that he misses the naive sweet girl she once was. He misses the girl who would have done anything for him at his beck and call with no pushback. Jemima shares her thoughts and opinions especially when they do not align with others. This quality is clearly not valued in society or in men’s lives. Her mother knows not to share her thoughts and feelings when her husband is around. He needs to feel like he has authority and power in the household.

What is the purpose of including Jemima and Mr. Farquar in the novel? Is it to show easily people can fall for Ruth? Is she trying to accentuate the idea that even though she is this “fallen” woman she is not undeserving of love? What is the response Gaskell is trying to make us have? There is a lot of empathy that is felt for Ruth and her situation. She is continuously dealt bad cards. And she prays for forgiveness and guidance often and further educates herself to leave behind this sense of ignorance. But society does not view her sins this way.

Ruth: “She knew that she was beautiful; but that seemed abstract, and removed from herself. Her existence was in feeling, and thinking, and loving.“

Henry: “Her beauty was all that Mr Bellingham cared for, and it was supreme. It was all he recognised of her, and he was proud of it… She pleased him more by looking so lovely than by all her tender endeavours to fall in with his varying humour.“

Ruth was orphaned and has been alone for so long. I think that she longs to feel seen and loved. She doesn’t seem to necessarily value what she has to offer to someone. Or question whether they deserve her love and affection. Her beauty seems to be this thing that does not show who she really is. She is too naive to understand the power of it. Henry views her as a “new toy” and takes advantage of this beautiful girl. He takes for granted all of the things she could offer him, and is more so a prize. She is good for his reputation but fails to realize how detrimental he could be to hers.

• How can we interpret Henry’s attitude toward Ruth? Is he a bad guy?
• Why is Ruth’s innocence such a valuable thing?
• Does he deserve her affection?

From what I gathered the law states that if the child is legitimate and there is no concern of harm to the child then the father will be granted custody. The argument in Greenhill was that the mother would be able to show more affection to her children and the father had no connection to them. She felt they would be better off with her than he and his mother. The court ruled that because the father was abusive the law still applied and he should give full custody. They referred back to another court case The King v. Dobbyn where the father was accused of committing cruel acts and was unfaithful. In this case, the court favored the mother since the children needed to be nurtured. There were affidavits from other people to support that the father could be trusted to raise the children. On page 4 the judge reflects on the fact that the husband claims to have essentially begged his wife to forgive him and would give up his mistress if it meant that they could continue to live together. He believed that his wife would not be able to support their children. The idea of property seems to be hung over women’s heads often. They could be the most virtuous and affectionate mothers but because the law states that the father has the right to the children then all of that goes out the window. The judge in a way tries to justify the mistress and describes her as living and being loved by another women’s children. That to me is absolutely a crazy interpretation of what the situation is. According to the Custody Act if the woman was to commit adultery she could not benefit from the law, but this does not apply to men. Why is this a double standard of the 18th century?

The court wants to be able to find the best solution to preserve the welfare of the children. In Blisset’s case, it is explicitly stated that if the father is bankrupt and cannot monetarily take care of his children then the court would not put the children in his care. In the Skinner case, there is a lot of discussion about adultery and cruel treatment. These circumstances would factor into the decision being made. The courts seem to care about the child’s welfare, yet, they seem to side with the men still. Even though the father was in jail and living with another woman, the court still cannot rule where the child belongs (so it is with the father).

• Why would a mother of an illegitimate child be preferred in custody, but not if she is married?
• Why is a child considered an infant up until age 7?
• Why is a third party introduced (Skinner)?
• Paternal rights? “Best interest”?