Ladies and other creatures
Posted by Marie B on February 25, 1998 at 08:07:07:
In response to plight?, written by Miller on February 24, 1998 at 11:40:34
A point that seems to be missed here is that not all women were "Ladies." As a matter of fact very little of the female population would have been considered so. Miss Austen's novels are centered in a world of them but there were a vast number of women who were not recieving the aforementioned perks.
Considering my own family line and income I would not have been considered a lady.
I would have been my father's (husband's/brother's) chattel, with no rights to property or even my own children. In American society today I have the same rights as a man and am not owned by anyone. I can make my way into whatever social strata that I may aspire to, it is not dependent on the male I may be attached to. I can have a business, vote, get an education and make decisions for myself. That would not have been available to me in JA's time.
As romantic as the period was ( and I do LOVE it!) I am infinately better off now than I would have been then, Lady or not.
- Read that, Miller! (nfm) P. Bingham 19:01:11 2/25/98
(0)
- Very well said! My sentiments exactly! (nfm) Marie Bernadette 14:37:04 2/25/98
(0)
- Well said! (NFM) ElaineL 09:42:30 2/25/98
(2)
- Thanks for the kudos...but Marie B 23:13:26 2/25/98
(1)
- Well said, once again (nfm) Marie Bernadette 01:08:23 2/26/98
(0)
- Well said, once again (nfm) Marie Bernadette 01:08:23 2/26/98
(0)
- Thanks for the kudos...but Marie B 23:13:26 2/25/98
(1)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.
