Page 1 of 2

What were women like before 1900?

Posted: March 5th, 2013, 3:38 pm
by clowny
Humankind made more technological progress in the 100 years from 1900 to 2000, than in the previous 50,000 years of human existence. The 20th century brought us the automobile, television, internet, and of course, the political movement known as Women's Liberation/Feminism. All these things contributed to the decline of woman. The problem is, there is nobody alive today who can tell us what women were like before 1900.

What do you think the women were like before feminism was foisted upon us, causing women to behave like men? Did white women once have a similar demeanour to what asian women have today?

Lost Cause

Posted: March 5th, 2013, 4:14 pm
by buddy77
Clowny:

I dont think it really matters the way they were before. The AW will just stop short if being men...combat roles in military, NFL kicker and more to come yipee!
(im being sarcastic in the last part)

Posted: March 5th, 2013, 7:10 pm
by abcdavid01
Study history. Victorian England might be a good place to start. Lots of primary sources about daily social life, people's diaries, etc. It's someone to tell you these things beyond the grave.

Posted: March 5th, 2013, 8:43 pm
by fschmidt

Posted: March 6th, 2013, 12:32 am
by Renata
North American women were homemakers, they were 'kept women' by the men in their lives, father, brother or husband. Women were broken up into three different classes: Women of the upper-working class, women of the lower-working class, and the underclass women. The upper-working class women had the best lives & were educated as much as they were allowed. None attended colleges, only men did. They were very feminine, that was the time of the laced up corsets to show off their small waists, big can-can dresses, hats & gloves etc. Being attractive was important. Beauty was thier goal.. so they were very refined but flirtacious. Thier set roles were mother & wife. The lower-working class, and the underclass women, were expected to fullfil four roles: mother, wife, housekeeper, and worker. They all wore dresses, but these two classes were poor. They had to fetch well water, wood for heating, sew clothes, cook, clean, rear animals, heavy housekeeping to upkeep the home. I think the women back then were more hardworking, more nurturing, their roles were set. They had little or no dissapointment or reservations about their lives because there were no expectations. Roles in society were pre-set, well until the industrial era & jobs outside the home were created.

Posted: March 6th, 2013, 3:09 am
by Cornfed
Renata wrote: None attended colleges, only men did.
A few women of the time attended college. I remember a Charles Dodgeson letter where he pontificated on whether they should be allowed to attend previously all-male classes at Oxford. Of course only about 1-2% of men attended college at the time.

Posted: March 6th, 2013, 3:23 am
by clowny

Here's an interesting quote from the first link:

"I am aware that an education of this kind is not without danger; I am sensible that it tends to invigorate the judgement at the expense of the imagination, and to make cold and virtuous women instead of affectionate wives and agreeable companions to man."

With the benefit of hindsight, we can say that was a forewarning of things to come.

Posted: March 6th, 2013, 4:19 am
by Jester
Interesting stuff. Always heard of Tocqueville, never read before - so thanks.

Based on the first one, it seems clear that girls from Catholic countries were more girlish - even way back then.

So I guess congratulations on that Mexican wife of yours.

Posted: March 6th, 2013, 4:23 am
by Jester
Renata wrote:North American women were homemakers, they were 'kept women' by the men in their lives, father, brother or husband. Women were broken up into three different classes: Women of the upper-working class, women of the lower-working class, and the underclass women. The upper-working class women had the best lives & were educated as much as they were allowed. None attended colleges, only men did. They were very feminine, that was the time of the laced up corsets to show off their small waists, big can-can dresses, hats & gloves etc. Being attractive was important. Beauty was thier goal.. so they were very refined but flirtacious. Thier set roles were mother & wife. The lower-working class, and the underclass women, were expected to fullfil four roles: mother, wife, housekeeper, and worker. They all wore dresses, but these two classes were poor. They had to fetch well water, wood for heating, sew clothes, cook, clean, rear animals, heavy housekeeping to upkeep the home. I think the women back then were more hardworking, more nurturing, their roles were set. They had little or no dissapointment or reservations about their lives because there were no expectations. Roles in society were pre-set, well until the industrial era & jobs outside the home were created.
Wow - it seems that you have thought about this!

+1

PS great lines in your signature as well!

Posted: March 6th, 2013, 5:47 am
by gsjackson
Jester wrote: Interesting stuff. Always heard of Tocqueville, never read before - so thanks.
Oh goodness, he foresaw it all -- the whole rotting culture of narcissism -- back in 1830. The patron saint of everything we try to do on this forum. Highly, highly recommend volume 2 of Democracy in America. Think you'd find it especially interesting. Still the best book ever written on the U.S. -- by a Frenchman who was here for about a year. To my left as I write this there is a bookcase with a bust of Tocqueville on top flanked by 16 of the great classics of social criticism written about the U.S. in the 20th century -- all based directly on Tocqueville's thought.

Re: What were women like before 1900?

Posted: March 6th, 2013, 6:41 am
by Dr Smart
No question technology and higher income changed women for the worse.

The problem was, society changed too quickly. We didn't have time to adjust ourselves to the massive changes brought on by technology and industrialization. Industrialization took 100 years, but we needed 1000 years to fine tune our values. Any economic or technological change requires some time to adjust so that the values catch up to the new environment.

Posted: March 6th, 2013, 6:43 am
by Jester
gsjackson wrote:
Jester wrote: Interesting stuff. Always heard of Tocqueville, never read before - so thanks.
Oh goodness, he foresaw it all -- the whole rotting culture of narcissism -- back in 1830. The patron saint of everything we try to do on this forum. Highly, highly recommend volume 2 of Democracy in America. Think you'd find it especially interesting. Still the best book ever written on the U.S. -- by a Frenchman who was here for about a year. To my left as I write this there is a bookcase with a bust of Tocqueville on top flanked by 16 of the great classics of social criticism written about the U.S. in the 20th century -- all based directly on Tocqueville's thought.
:lol: I do miss Southern intellectual life. Ah well.

Maybe one day... some day... <<apr>>

Posted: March 6th, 2013, 5:12 pm
by Renata
Cornfed wrote:
Renata wrote: None attended colleges, only men did.
A few women of the time attended college. I remember a Charles Dodgeson letter where he pontificated on whether they should be allowed to attend previously all-male classes at Oxford. Of course only about 1-2% of men attended college at the time.
as I mentioned earlier the upper class women got an education, as much as theyr were allowed, ... so it is very possible.

Jester my biggest beef with the world is something darker and more sinister than feminism. I believe that were're being poisoned everyday, slowly by the foods we eat .. and we are paying & buying them blindly. Manufactured, man-made foods / processed foods. Go into you kitchen and grab 10 store bought items. Sit & research the chemical contents & preservatives. Why eat foods that had to be made' when there are natural occuring sources all around us.

Posted: March 6th, 2013, 6:18 pm
by Billy
Renata,

but people still live longer than in the past. doesn´t sound like it´s really dangerous. at be carefull in turkey. these guys have no starndards in food quality control.

Posted: March 6th, 2013, 6:56 pm
by abcdavid01
Billy, that's only marginally true. In the Middle Ages the average age of death was like 40, but the super high infant mortality rate skewed the numbers. If you could make it to age 20 in the 14th century you'd probably live another 50 years. So yeah, people may be living a few years longer, but we haven't pushed the number up all that much. The difference is just that a lot less kids are dying. The more you know.