-->Oh. You think women will do what men have failed to do in political life? They will give us clean government and all that, I suppose”. “No, I feel sure women will not do any better in politics than men will do—why should they? However, women should have every opportunity to muddle along with the men where we are all going.” I thought this quote really demonstrated something about her character. She was not afraid to be blunt and honest about what she felt.
Another issue that she tackled in "Why Do Intelligent Women Marry?" was just what the title indicated-marriage. She was married to her husband who was also involved in political affairs. She discussed their relationship and how she felt about relationships in general: " -->I am intensely interested in his success. I do not want him in any degree to subordinate himself to me—if he were the subordinating type of man, I would not have married him. But I, too, am an individual. I do not want to subordinate myself to my husband—nor does he wish it. It is custom and society that compels the wife to be subordinate to the husband." I think that this is a good indication of how she felt relationships should work. They should be equal and both parties should feel that they are important and intelligent. I think that her view definitely could be the same view as many other women. It is so important to realize that men and women both have to have power in the relationship and have an identity of their own. I didn't get a chance to look at her other work very much, but I thought that she seemed like a very interesting individual with new ideas delivered in a witty way.
WORKS CITED:
Hapgood, M.D., mss. Writings Hapgood, M.D. Why Do Intelligent Women Marry? n.d.
Laura, you have stumbled upon one of the most interesting pieces I found in the M.D.Hapgood manuscript collection. Like you, I didn't have as much time to check out the story as I wanted to, but I think Hapgood ended up being recording secretary for all or part of the Sacco-Vanzetti trial, and she was a long-time protestor of their controversial "guilty" verdict. The case has been widely publicized, so it wouldn't be hard to find some information on it, especially since it represented prejudicial anti-immigrant (especially anti-Italian) sentiment at the time. However, it's also interesting to see whether/how Hapgood narrates the events from the point of view of an eyewitness. Good luck and have fun with it!
ReplyDelete-Dr. Graban